The Art of the Steal

This is a very well made film.

All that said, I guess I am having a hard time seeing the outrage expressed by filmmakers. It isn't like the art is being sold off to rich people. It is being put in one venue and into another which is more accessible to the public.

Yes, one can truly appreciate the fact that Barnes had a legitimate gripe with the cultural elite of Philadelphia (which honestly sounds like an oxymoron in itself). But in the end, he won. He was the guy with the vision and the artwork he collected, much of it dismissed in its time, are now seen as masterworks.

To continue his vendetta against his adversaries (all of whom are about as dead as he is) seems a bit silly. The artworks are going to be preserved as an intact collection in a much better venue. I'm just having a hard time sharing the outrage here...

I've lived in the Philly area my entire life & followed the Barnes Foundation saga from the very beginning until its tawdry denouement and I don't understand some of the bizarre postings above.

No doubt the filmmakers had an agenda, which was that the Barnes should stay in Merion but the power brokers in Harrisburg and Philly colluded to drive it into the ground to force the move to the BF Parkway, which was entirely at odds with Dr. Barnes Last Will & Testament.

This was pretty convincingly driven home by the movie.

The collection isn't invitation only, you simply request a timed ticket on their website and you're in. The entrance fee is a reasonable $15 and the museum housing the collection is truly world class, on par with the Villa Borghese in Rome or the Frick in Manhatten, only better. It is truly one of a kind, one of the treasures of the art world.

It's true that the Barnes was mismanaged by Richard Glanton, the President of the Trustees, during the 1990's. His lawsuit against the Merion Neighbors Association was as disastrous as it was idiotic. But that was no excuse to move the whole operation to the Parkway. It seems it would have been quite easy to raise the money to keep it at Merion.

Who cares if the number of eyeballs weren't maximized? It was never intended to be run that way. And after Episcopal Academy moved away from it's previous City Line Ave location, an entrance from Route 1 (City Line Ave) could have easily been paved (Episcocal even offered to donate the land to make it happen, a fact oddly not mentioned in the film). This would have entirely eliminated the neighbors complaints. However, those talks went nowhere (did the power brokers intervene to squash that also?) Saint Joseph's University ended up buying the entire Episcopel property. I have no doubt SJU would have been more than willing to work something out with a treasure like the Barnes. Having a world renowned art institution as a neighbor would be woth that much, at least.

The question arises, "what would Barnes think of the move?". He despised the stuffy, Republican WASPs that ran Philadelphia and who looked down their noses at the upstart Barnes and his post impressionist art. He left control in his will to the downtrodden African Americans who ran Lincoln University, as a way to "stick it" to the powers that be. But now that those outsiders are actually the insiders, and helped engineer the move to the Parkway, would Barnes object? Who really knows.

In any event, I thought the documentary was great & recommend it highly.

This well-made documentary is informative and fascinating, but I don't think it fairly presents the arguments for those who disagree with its thesis, which is that Barnes' will should be meticulously respected as it pertains to his amazing art collection.

Those who feel otherwise are portrays as gangsters, thieves, Philistines: power-hungry jerks with selfish motives. While there is an undoubtedly an element of truth to those accusations, it is not the entire story. I feel I must play a little devil's advocate for a more charitable spin on 'the other side.'

It appears to me that the collection's arrangement and display in the original Barnes building is hopelessly outdated: crammed together in the style of a century ago, and arranged according to the whim of one man who is long dead. The modern museum gives art much more space to breathe, and scholars and curators can and do illuminate art by arranging it, and juxtaposing it, in new and different ways.

Why should these works be arranged, forever, in only one pattern, and in only one building? Blockbuster exhibitions are not merely money-makers for museums, but are opportunities to see art in a different context, and for scholars and curators to advance the study of art by combining pieces in new and different ways.

Why, logically, should cultural treasures be considered the property of one man legacy for all of eternity? I can see the logic of requesting an owner's wishes for a long period of time--say, for 50 years. But for centuries? Owners of art deserve respect, but the notion that ownership can extend out into an infinite future is crazy. Just as copyrighted works eventually enter the public domain, so should artworks become available for the benefit and enjoyment of the larger public.

Barnes' name should be, and will be, associated with this art for a very long time. But his obsessions and whims and taste should not dictate the fate of his collection for all time. Allowing the work to travel, and to be arranged differently, and to even move into a new building, is reasonable (over centuries, a dozen different curators and scholars might bring their era's thinking and aesthetic to the collection).

I concede that this might be painful for Lower Merion, and to those who agree with Barnes' will. But Barnes has been dead for decades. Ownership and control of objects of major cultural importance should, eventually, pass from the control of an owner who has long been dead.

And Matisse's line, about how the Barnes was the only sane place in America to view art, should be taken with a grain of salt: if he saw the best art museums in America today, he may very well have changed his mind. A world-class museum today is far, far superior to any art museum of a century ago. Each generation produces new scholarship, and artworks of genuine cultural importance should be available to the finest scholars and curators of each generation. To do otherwise is to overvalue the taste and importance of a single individual who died decades ago, and to undervalue the art's importance to the wider world.

Matisse said the Barnes House was the only sane place in America to view art.

Once upon a time, a century and a half ago, a few unknown artists in France had a new vision of painting and visual art. They painted in a style that was an affront to the art establishment which largely dismissed them and their work. They were mostly excluded from the Académie Royale de Peinture et de Sculpture in Paris because their works did not invoke a kind of idealism that "the powers that be" felt should be in art. They won no prizes for their efforts, and they had to create their own galleries and exhibition venues. But there was one American art collector, a little-known medical scientist who helped develop cures for gonorrhea and venereal disease, who had an eye for modern art. He used the money he made from his cures to acquire paintings by these mavericks that no one else wanted. At the time, they were quite attainable. So, the doctor-scientist begin amassing a collection of these artworks sensing a value and aesthetic in them that most of art connoisseurship had dismissed. But later that would change.

Today, these unknowns and mavericks are household names: Czanne, Matisse, Picasso, Renoir, Monet, Manet, and Van Gogh, and their work is what we now call "impressionism" and "post-impressionism". The man who acquired so many of these works was the late Albert Barnes (1872-1951). He amassed a collection in the early 20th century that makes even the Louvre shake their head in envy. The collection boasts more Renoirs than the entire nation of France! In the current art market, the collection is worth far more than he ever could have paid for them at the time he acquired most of them, reportedly between 25 and 35 billion dollars US (2010). In all likelihood, not even the Louvre or the Metropolitan Museum of Art could afford to buy the entire collection at market value. What we're talking about here is a priceless collection. But instead of donating the collection to a museum, Barnes decided to create a kind of educational institution with the collection as its focus. He arranged the paintings in an unconventional manner that matched like-quality and like-inspiration rather than by stylistic period, which is the norm in most museums. This way students could see a painting from the Impressionists period next to a Rembrandt, and understand the similarities.

Barnes died in 1951 and left what he thought was an iron-clad Will to keep the paintings in the Barnes' house and maintain the same arrangement for his school. It was essentially kept that way until the death of the first Trustee head who died in 1988. Now the Barnes Collection appears to be destined for the City of Philadelphia housed in a new museum, something it sounds like he never would have wanted. "The Art of the Steal" chronicles the myriad lawsuits and wheeling-dealings that destroyed the integrity of one man's unique vision of his art and collection. According to the documentary, the paintings will be moved into a museum for the tourist crowd rather than maintaining his wishes for an art school.

Most of the "talking heads" of the documentary are those opposed to the relocation of the collection, which makes the documentary rather lopsided in that direction. However, it is interesting that many people involved in the actual deal, the new Board Members of the Trustees of the Barnes Foundation, refused to be interviewed. In other interviews and statements outside the documentary, they claim to honor Barnes' desires as outlined in his Will. But they refused to be interviewed for the documentary which begs the question, if they have nothing to hide, why not let the chips fall where they may, including the current head of the Trustees, Dr. Bernard C. Watson? And if they have the facts on their side, why did they exclude the filmmakers from attending a press conference? Whether mostly accurate or inaccurate, there is one person you can't so easily dismiss: former NAACP chairman Julian Bond. Bond is one of the most level-headed people on the planet and not prone to extremism. When he sees this as a plundering of a great collection, I am bound to listen. It sounds like the vision of the collection for art students is being thrown away in favor of tourism.

The only advocate for the collection's relocation who appears on camera is the Governor of Pennsylvania, who speaks at length about the advantages for Philadelphia, saying it was a "no-brainer". Of course. Honoring the Will of a dead art collector who won't be contributing to any political campaigns pales in comparison to the big-wig moneyed forces that wanted the collection moved. But never once in the interview does the Governor say he's doing it in the best interest of the wishes of Barnes. He's doing what's in the best interests of his political future is the message.

Former President of the Trustees, Richard Glanton, appears to be the where the trouble started. He makes no bones about having made all kinds of deals regarding the collection which seems served more Glanton than the wishes of Barnes. He authorized a tour of the works worldwide. Certainly, people should be able to see the collection, but would have Albert Barnes approved of this?

The only shortcoming of the documentary I felt was again the lack of a narrator. There were many facts I wanted to know more about that were not covered by the interviewees, particularly stories about from whom and from where he acquired many of these paintings. Still a fascinating account of a very controversial subject. Should the paintings be accessible to a greater public? Yes. But should the integrity of the collection be compromised for this goal? I leave that up to the viewer.

"The Art of the Steal" is about not only the greatest art theft in the world, but probably the greatest crime ever committed. And at this point, let's define "greatest". In this sense, "great" means comparatively large in size or number, unusual or considerable in power or intensity, and of an extreme or notable degree. It does not mean wonderful, first-rate, or good. This theft wasn't even deemed a crime in the first place and was committed by mobsters, city of Philadelphia politicians, and educators.

The documentary follows the story chronologically. It starts with Dr. Albert C. Barnes' educating himself about art and building an immense art collection. He's a good guy. He wanted to appreciate art for art's sake, not for its perceived value. He started the Barnes Foundation, complete with approximately $30 Billion dollars worth of art work by some of the world's most eminent painters. And, yes, that's Billion with a "B". The legal articles of incorporation for the Barnes Foundation made it very clear that this was a private, educational institution. Art students were encouraged to sign-up for classes or a visit. The "fat cats" of Philadelphia were not.

The next part of the documentary was Barnes' death in 1951. It makes you gasp if you think about what could happen to the Foundation if he didn't adequately prepare for its life after his death. The story kept weaving its way through twist after twist and for somebody who is completely uneducated in art history, each point was more shocking than the one before.

The good news is that Barnes' did adequately prepare the Foundation in the event of his death. He had a legal Will and Testament firmly in place. It was first left to his trusted friend, Violette de Mazia, and she did the best she could. Even in the event of her death, which happened in 1988, Barnes still had the legal ownership of the Foundation intact. The bad news is that greedy, manipulative people in power do not have to follow legal documents. To them the legal system is this little joke which they can just look down on and laugh at as they proceed to do the opposite of what was supposed to happen – legally and morally speaking that is.

"The Art of the Steal" is a great documentary because they even managed to get people like "educator" Richard Glanton, the Governor of Pennsylvania, the Mayor of Philadelpha, and a corrupt judge to speak in front of the camera admitting to what they did, in direct opposition to the law, completely nonchalant to their immoral actions. And the world just has to sit back and watch them commit the greatest crime ever.