“The Art of the Steal”: Rescue Mission or Cultural Vandalism?

“The Barnes Foundation is the only sane place to see art in America.” –Henri Matisse

Synopsis

“The Art of the Steal” is a film, documenting the controversial move of the famous Barnes Collection from the Arnold Barnes’ foundation in Merion, Pennsylvania to the city of Philadelphia.

The Barnes Foundation was originally established by Arnold Barnes in 1922. It was based on his strong ideas about the educational value of quality art experiences (strongly influenced by John Dewey). Instead of the rare collection being treated as property to be traded, sold, and “displayed as upholstery,” Barnes utilized the collection to preserve a cultural period and educate young artists. John Dewey, himself, was supportive of the way in which Barnes ran the foundation. The collection contains some of the most important works of the post-impressionist period including pieces by Van Gogh, Monet, Picasso, Rousseau, Cezanne, and Matisse.Barnes was a progressive collector, “far ahead of his time,” according to the film, and yet–like most progressive thinkers–he was darkly criticized by conservative Philadelphia critics. To pour salt onto the issue, the Foundation was not accessible in the same way as public museums. Barnes’ first priority was to educate, so it was run primarily as a school. Because the collection was privately owned by Barnes himself, he could utilize it however he saw fit. As a result, he was antagonized by art critics, politicians, and entities that essentially envied the valuable collection.

Fast forward to the 1990’s–Barnes has long been passed away, the Foundation has been run in a variety of ways. For the first thirty years after Barnes’ passing, former French teacher at the school, Violette Demazia, ran the Foundation in the same way as Barnes–as a school. After her death (1988), the fate of the collection was questionable, but Barnes’ ultimate will stated that the foundation be left in the control of Lincoln University. Franklin Williams (of Lincoln University) was named President of the Foundation. He set up an art advisory committee, with good intentions, but within the year of his appointment he died of aggressive cancer. Richard Glanton of the committee took over as president, and it seemed he didn’t have the Foundation’s best interest at heart–suggesting that some of the art be sold to pay for repairs to the building.

This was merely the beginning of the football toss that became the struggle for control over the Barnes collection. Posed as the only way to “protect” the collection, Barnes’ will was overridden (which can be done if it preserves the owner’s intent), and it was determined that the collection would be moved to downtown Philadelphia. Those invested in the Barnes Foundation and its original intentions fought legally, and protested peacefully. In the end, it was of no avail. Despite omission of pertinent information by the parties involved in moving the collection, The Barnes Foundation was ultimately moved. Under the purest of circumstances, in which the owner’s will is honored, and the mission of an establishment is not compromised, the collection would still be in Merion, Pennsylvania–operating with primarily educational purposes. Most importantly—it would not be positioned to provide monetary profit to anyone…including the city tourism fund.

This is the position “The Art of the Steal” presents.

Interpretation

One could easily take the spirited side of those fighting to preserve Arnold Barnes’ original intent for the collection:

1. It seems that the challenging of Barnes’ will for the purpose of “protecting” the collection was a bit slanted. There was over $1 million dollars available for transporting the collection, so why couldn’t those funds have been used to preserve the building that the collection was already residing in?
2. Barnes’ desire was that the collection be used for purely educational purposes, in a private setting. He did not want the collection to be exposed to scrutiny and unappreciative audiences as the museum model assumes.
3. Barnes’ desire was that the collection not be subjected to monetary profit. To get in to see Barnes’ collection, today, costs up to $25 per visit for non-members, and $45 per person for a guided tour of the collection.

The will was overridden in order to protect the collection and preserve the owner’s original intent. Right?

On the other hand, I also consider these factors:

1. Now, more people have access to these wonderful works (even though the high price restricts the audience base).
2. It is typically a desirable thing for a city and an arts organization to work together, for the betterment of both.

Even in the case of this privately owned collection, there was a clear vision in place. As an arts advocate, the bottom line question is this…”Is the mission of the collection being honored, in its current position?”

**”The Art of the Steal” is available for streaming on Netflix.