In The Art Of The Steal, the economic impact of the Barnes Collection relocation was projected to be the equivalent of “three Super Bowls, without the beer”, benefiting the masses and injecting money into the city. However, this is exactly what Barnes and his immediate cohorts did not want this collection to become. Do you think that the Barnes Collection should be exhibited in the public and economic interest contrary to Barnes’ intentions, or should the will of but one man and his followers be respected?
Martin Filler portrays Albert Barnes as an “incompetent, out-of-control relative” in Victory! and compares the movement of the Barnes to a “desperate family’s intervention aimed at saving a shared inheritance from being irrevocably squandered.” Based on what we know about Albert Barnes in this reading, Moving Pictures, and The Art Of The Steal, is Filler’s argument about Barnes and his collection justified, and if not, what about his argument is flawed?
In Moving Pictures, Peter Schjeldahl describes how worthwhile a visit to the Barnes is in that “a lifetime of art-history lectures will teach you less about his [Cézanne’s] art’s quiddity, and why and how it matters, than an hour at the Barnes.” In understanding a work of art, how important are facts and dates as opposed to the experience of actually admiring that work of art and treating it as a “feast of the eyes?”
Do you think that the Barnes Collection should be exhibited in the public and economic interest contrary to Barnes’ intentions, or should the will of but one man and his followers be respected?
o Art in general belongs to everyone and everyone should get the chance to enjoy its grandeur. Therefore, the public should be able to view the artwork in the Barnes collection. Some may say that since the art is in a private collection no one has a right to see it, if the owner does not want them to (even if it is a breathtaking collection). Barnes did not want his collection of artwork to become dull and unsatisfying like the works that museums usually hold so he decided to withhold the artwork for students of art. But the collection does not belong to Barnes alone, the trustees believe that more people should benefit from the magnificent collection.
o Barnes did not want the collection to lose its aesthetic value, which he spent his life making perfect. The biggest problem that Barnes had with the “Main Line oligarchy” was that they did not invest their emotions in the art they showed, they just displayed the art side by side in order to see the art. Barnes wanted people to feel the art, not just see it. The juxtaposition of the pieces and the aesthetic pleasure you receive from the pieces are what he was afraid of losing if even a single frame was loaned, borrowed, or bought. But since the whole collection is moving, more people can view it without it losing its aesthetic organizational value.
Martin Filler portrays Albert Barnes as an “incompetent, out-of-control relative” in Victory and compares the movement of the Barnes to a “desperate family’s intervention aimed at saving a shared inheritance from being irrevocably squandered.” Based on what we know about Albert Barnes in this reading, Moving Pictures, and The Art Of The Steal, is Filler’s argument about Barnes and his collection justified, and if not, what about his argument is flawed?
o Even though he owned the collection he gave it up when he died. The living descendants can do with their inheritance as they wish.
• When you give $1 million to your descendants you cannot tell them “you can never share this with anyone.” The new owner can donate the money for a good cause as he sees fit, the dead cannot control the life of the living.
• The writer of the will can put conditions on the money like the money has to stay in a specific bank account until it is needed. But what if the bank is going bankrupt and the descendants need to withdraw the money to save it from being lost, even though the will said not to withdraw the money it cannot be left to disappear.
o Nobody can see into the future and predict all the conditions to put into a will so if a condition is found that is not found in the will it is up to the living descendants to find a solution. When it comes to the Barnes collection the artwork was going to be lost if left in the building with bad conditions. Since that condition was not discussed in the will the living descendants can choose what to do with the art. If it were up to Barnes he would rather let the art be destroyed rather than let the art go into a museum.
Even though the artwork in the Barnes Collection is readily available to the public, one should ponder the thought of whether it should be. The documentary The Art of the Steal showed Barnes’ passion for the artwork to be used for educational purposes, not to be capitalized and taken advantage of in order to make a profit. Daniel states in his response that “Art in general belongs to everyone,” but the main reason the Barnes Collection was opened in the first place was not for the general public to view it like any other museum.
But this position raises its own question: Who determines the purpose of a piece of art?
Martin Filler’s article Victory! explains how Barnes’ former classmate William Glackens originally purchased the first paintings that developed into the extensive collection Barnes came to own, but did Picasso, Monet, and Goya intend for their artwork to be privatized in a collection that restricted the viewers to only include students and educators? It is a question that cannot be answered without asking he original artists themselves, and dead artists tell no tales.
Barnes intended for his widespread collection to be kept in its secluded corner of lower Merion, where it would be out of sight from the bustling city of Philadelphia, especially Benjamin Franklin Parkway, where the Philadelphia Museum of Art seems to take center stage. The artwork portrayed in a formal museum such as the Philadelphia Museum of Art does not have the same sense of personality, as does the lived-in feeling of the Barnes Collection’s first building.