The Barnes Collection As A Cultural Jewel Of Extraordinary Nature - Movie Review Example

The Barnes Collection As A Cultural Jewel Of Extraordinary Nature The Art of the Steal is an arresting documentary that covers the controversy on how the Barnes Foundation has evolved from an educational art facility in the suburbs to a major museum of urban art. The documentary touches on several basic issues, including the legal execution of wills made by eccentric people, donor intent, and the definition of access by the public to a personal collection (Kennicott 1). The Barnes Foundation was founded by the wealthy scientist Albert Barnes in 1922, collecting an incomparable selection of modernist and impressionist art, including work by Picasso, Matisse, Cezanne, and Renoir. The Barnes Foundation was formed in Merion, PA as an educational facility by Barnes and John Dewey, an educational philosopher. However, unlike majority of art collections, this was neither a public museum nor a private museum and was primarily used to teach adult and youth students. While the foundation allowed public visitors at least twice a week, these were treated as second-class citizens in comparison to students. Barnes’ vision for the entire collection was contained in his will, which stated that the art could not be loaned, reproduced, sold, or travelled and that the school was to continue (Kennicott 1). However, leaders in Philadelphia clamored for the collection to be made more accessible by moving it to the city, which was finally achieved by Pew Charitable Trusts, Annenberg Foundation, and Lenfest Foundation. The documentary identifies various ways in which Barnes’ will has been subverted, as well as the development of a highly public and new home for Barnes’ collection, which the film states Barnes sought to avoid and despised. In successfully challenging the will of Mr. Barnes and its original intent, Pew Charitable Trusts, Annenberg Foundation, and Lenfest Foundation used two basic arguments. First, they argued that the Barnes Foundation was financially struggling and that a move to a venue that was more accessible in Philadelphia would help in dramatically increasing attendance, bolstering the Foundation’s finances (Steinberg 1). Secondly, they also argued that the collection was an incredible artifact of culture that should be accessed by more people. In this case, they posited that demand exceeded availability in Merion for public hours, as well as the fact that demand was a valid concern for the public that the foundations found necessary to address (Steinberg 1). However, these arguments do not stand under close scrutiny as will be seen. One of the strangest things identified when watching the documentary was that Pew Charitable Trusts, Annenberg Foundation, and Lenfest Foundation insisted that an increase in attendance would be a step towards solving the Foundation’s financial crisis. This does not make much sense because, usually, museums rarely make the bulk of their money from attendance. In fact, majority of museums around the United States collect a maximum of ten percent from their admission fees (Anderson 45). Taking the example of the Philadelphia Museum of Art that has a total of ~800,000 visitors annually, total income for the fiscal year ending June 2011 was $80.4 million as per their public 990 tax form. From their tax form, only $3.9 million or 5% was from attendance and admission at the museum, while $1.7 million or 2% was from special exhibitions. The Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts, on the other hand, had a total of 54,000 visitors a year with total revenue of $16.2 million, of which $1 million was from admissions. In addition, the Academy also ran a school for MFA and BFA students, which made $9.3 million or 57% of the total revenues for 2011 (Anderson 45). As a result, it seems that actually focusing on being a school could be more financially viable than focusing on being a museum. With regards to the argument about increased access, the three Foundations argued that moving the Barnes Foundation would increase access by the public. The move raises the question as to how closely a donor’s designation about how their private property is to be used must be followed (Smith 1). Another question that this argument raises is whether the opinions of cultural and civic leaders about cultural relevance of Barnes’ designation actually matter. Finally, it also raises a question as to how much public good a collection should confer prior to challenging the wishes of its owner, especially where the collection is unique and the owner has barred its transfer or reproduction. Moreover, a question also arises as to whether there are multiple valid ways to define access in the case of collections. While the first two questions touch on the law and it would be difficult to answer in this essay, the last question can definitely be answered in the affirmative. Some collections can be classed as entirely private, others can be classed as seasonally accessible to a select number of visitors, and others are publicly-owned with access enabled though digitization efforts or appointment (Smith 1). In this case, some objects can be seen, while others are not available to be seen. Whereas the Barnes Foundation was not accessible to visitors wishing to pay admission fees in order to view the art collection, it was also widely accessible for artists, students, and teachers who could spend lengthy periods studying the art collection (Rudenstine 44). The re-configuration championed by Pew Charitable Trusts, Annenberg Foundation, and Lenfest Foundation indicates that they believe the first form of access to be of more importance than the second does. In such a case, attendance and admissions are more important than the depth of experience, while the city center trumps the suburbs. Thus, the Foundations championing the move felt that demand had a moral value to the public. However, the Barnes Foundation, in its formation, was not meant to be a museum but as a school that, as part of its curriculum, used an art collection that was privately held. As a result, it is difficult to understand why standards of access applied to museums should also be applied to the Barnes Foundation simply because cultural and civic leaders feel that it is politically convenient (Rudenstine 44). From these arguments, it would suffice to say that the real reason Pew Charitable Trusts, Annenberg Foundation, and Lenfest Foundation pushed for the Barnes Foundations to be moved from the suburbs to the city center was that the Barnes Collection was a cultural jewel of extraordinary nature. As a result, it was felt that the City of Philadelphia needed to own this collection as a jewel in its crown. Thus, this essay has argued that the real reason for moving the collection was not to increase access to the public, to enhance the experience of the public in viewing the collection, or to enhance the Foundation’s financial health. Rather, it was in order for Philadelphia to use it for its marketing and tourism endeavors for the city. This may be positive in some ways, such as through its implications that Pew Charitable Trusts, Annenberg Foundation, and Lenfest Foundation understand the value that such a foundation holds for tourist attraction and identity-building. However, it does not justify the blatant disregard for Albert Barnes’ intent. Works Cited Anderson, John. Art Held Hostage: The Battle over the Barnes Collection. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2013. Print. Kennicott, Philip. Barnes Foundation’s New Philadelphia museum reviewed. 11 May 2012. Web.11 November 2014 . Rudenstine, Neil L. The House of Barnes: The Man, the Collection, the Controversy. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 2012. Print. Smith, Roberta. A Museum, Reborn, Remains True to Its Old Self, Only Better. 17 May 2012. Web. 11 November 2014 . Steinberg, Don. The $25 Billion Art Move. 24 June 2011. Web. 11 November 2014 . Read More