Oh hello, friends. Look at this fancy little blog we got going on here. I didn't realize I was so late to the party!
...okay yes I did. Don't judge me!
As you all know (with the exception of Dawne and Victoria because you were not there), I had a lot of feelings after watching "The Art of the Steal" about the Barnes Foundation. A LOT of feelings. Mostly anger, some disappointment, and even a little bit of nausea. Intense, right? Well, I've manged to accumulate a few more!
Brief background: Albert Barnes amassed an incredible collection of impressionist and post-impressionist art in the first half of the 20th century. His will stipulated the art was never to be loaned, sold, or moved from its original home in Merion, PA, approximately 5 miles from Philadelphia. Barnes died, and the art was safe until the 1990s-2000s when the Foundation was in deep debt, and the city of Philadelphia got involved. Long story short, the city, with the help of three main non-profits, utilized every loophole possible to legally move the collection. They cited several reasons as to why the move was right. The foundation's financial situation was dire, they didn't think enough people saw the collection, and they were afraid the building and collection was not being properly maintained. These seem like reasonable concerns, right?
The problem lies in the fact that Barnes' will was completely circumvented for the city to get what they wanted. It had been slowly dismantled bit by bit, decade by decade, until it became completely null and void. My initial anger came from this fact. It was a gross misuse of the justice system. Had the city or charities actually cared about the Barnes Foundation and the collection that Barnes worked so hard to put together, they could have easily put the money used to move it into maintaining it instead.
After further reflection though, I realized that, from a public history stand point, moving the collection was advantageous for the users as well. It made the art accessible by placing it in the center of a cultural hub in downtown Philadelphia. Membership increased from 400 to almost 20,000. There was plenty of parking. The art was finally displayed under professional, museum-grade quality lighting. The original arrangement, which was a defining characteristic of the Barnes collection, was maintained in the new building; it was the only way for visitors to get a sense of how Barnes viewed not only his works, but his understanding of art in general. So I guess notwithstanding the circumvention of Barnes’s will, the creation of the new Barnes museum will allow an incredible number of people to view one of the best art collections in the world, which is ultimately what we as public historians should want to do. Maybe just not by manipulating the legal system, yeah?
No comments:
Post a Comment