The Art of the Steal is about the Barnes Foundation's history and current move from Merion, PA, to downtown Philadelphia. Albert C. Barnes was born into a lower-class family in Philly and worked his way up, eventually working in the pharmaceutical industry and earning his fortune. With his new fortune, he began acquiring early Impressionist paintings - quickly and decisively. These paintings were not popular at the time, and when Barnes returned to display his new acquisitions at a show at the Art Academy, Philly's art critics denounced the works. Barnes never forgave Philadelphia's elite for their shortsighted negative reviews, and swore that his collection would never benefit nor sit in central Philadelphia. His foundation was built to house the collection as arranged by Barnes, and was a primarily educational institution, training painters, and was not open to the public.
Barnes' collection includes Matisse, Renoir, VanGogh, and other big names. It is now valued at $25-30 billion dollars. In the original building, Barnes commissioned Matisse to paint La Danse, a wall mural, so part of the art is literally integrated into the building.
Barnes died in 1951. As told by the film, central Philly power figures and politicians maneuvered carefully and diligently to dismantle Barnes' will. Slowly but surely, the powers that be removed Barnes' intermediary, Lincoln College, intended to keep the collection in Merion and out of control of Philly politics. With Lincoln College out of the way, power transfers and control of the board of the Barnes were steadily taken over. Through various legal two-steps, the film tells us, the Barnes' integrity was subverted and Barnes' final wishes ignored. Recent legal suits affirmed plans to remove the collection from its Lower Merion, PA, location in the original Barnes-designed building to central Philly. This, in the opinion of the filmmakers, destroys the integrity and experience of the collection as Barnes wanted it and dishonors Barnes' will and legacy. The people Barnes wanted his collection kept away from are now leveraging it for political and financial gain.
The film does raise some interesting questions: how long does a person's will remain valid? When it comes to property and collections, how are they to be managed in accordance with the former owner's wishes, and for how long? (One might ask the same questions of Leona Helmsley's dog) How long should Barnes' wishes be allowed to govern his collection? Art often is discussed in terms of "invaluable" cultural heritage that is often integrated into larger discussions of identity and citizenship (Duncan and Wallach's article "Art Museums and the Ritual of Citizenship," Tony Bennett's The Birth of the Museum). Furthermore, how is the arrangement of art and its display critical in the audience's perception and understanding of it? Furthermore, a common criticism and justification for a work's location is how many people will see it, have access to it (see: the British Museum on the Elgin marbles). Is having more viewers to a work better (ie, Philly location) or having an obscure location that only attracts more devoted viewers (Merion location)? Keep in mind that statistics show that the average museum visitor spends only 2.7 seconds (!) in front of a work on display.
The film raises a lot of these questions, and is unflinching in its criticism of the Barnes Foundation's move to central Philly. It is disconcerting to see the manner in which Barnes' wishes have been disregarded, and it raises the question of the utility and validity of wills and testaments. More importantly, the film looks at the value - both cultural and financial - of works of art that define our past and are an integral part of ideas about identity and citizenship. Whose art is it, and who gets to control it?
No comments:
Post a Comment