Dr. Barnes was a d-bag.

Philadelphia doesn't own those paintings... It is not theirs to make money from.

There's no reason these paintings "should be on public display" (even though they were absolutely on display to the public, just not in a 9-5 sense) and no reason why the trust should not continue as an educational institution. There's no law or moral right compelling any institution or individual to do anything with their own property that they don't want to. That would be wholeheartedly 'un-American'.

It doesn't matter what kind of person Barnes was, it doesn't matter what he thought of Philadelphia's glitterati. It certainly doesn't matter when Barnes bought the paintings, or that he had the foresight to buy and commission works before they were recognised as masterpieces. That has no bearing at all. And by the time he died the collection was already acknowledged as being the greatest collection of post-impressionist art in the world. But that has no bearing on his legacy either.

The way Barnes' collection was set up was absolutely practical. It's not practical if you have thousands of people traipsing through the building every hour, but it was never intended to used in that way. It's an educational facility and is perfectly set up for that. It's like saying a cinema is a rotten place to put on a play.

Having said that Barnes was obviously naive if he thought his collection would stay together in his building after his death no matter how much "technical mumbo jumbo" he "got some lawyers to right" in his will. I'm surprised it lasted so long in its original state, but that's thanks to DeMazia. Barnes should have made provisions for the art to go where he wanted it after his death, for it to be sold or housed in an existing institution with the clout and ethical fortitude to maintain it in the spirit of Barnes' educational foundation. It could have been a new wing at the Met for example, one that still retained the educational priorities Barnes favoured.

After DeMazia there was no one left running the foundation with the slightest interest in Barnes' wishes, just people like Glanton who apparently couldn't have cared less about the spirit of the foundation and just used the collection to glad hand with celebrities and generally further their own agendas.

Like it or not there's no moral or legal imperative for the foundation to be changed in any way whatsoever. The collection was never cut off from the public, it was open to the public every week, merely purposed for education. The people given access to the collection as part of its educational programmes were far more affected by the experience than any five-second stare at a public gallery. It's reasonable to say that as Barnes originally setup it up the collection allowed more people to gain a true understanding and experience of the art than any major museum or gallery today.

To "the mingk":

Your ill-mannered internet rhetoric is not only insulting to the memory of Dr. Barnes but to his foundation and it's supporters. You are a fool and I hope that one day in the near future you will see just how childish your statement here has been. If that day should never come, one can only hope that after YOU die someone will disregard YOUR last will and testament and disgrace your life's work for their own personal, political, and financial gain. Dr. Barnes assembled one of, if not the most important collections of art in the world and I take offense to you referring to him as a "d-bag". It is YOU SIR who are the "d-bag".

What claim do you have to the collection?

Glanton was a reverse race-bating douchebag and self-promoter.

To the "mingk":

The Mingk: "Why should this collector's opinion's be kept after his death just because he got some lawyers to right it all down in some technical mumbo jumbo.

Napoleon Forever( NF): This Collector's COLLECTION, not opinion, should be administered after his death AS PER THE TRUST, which is our Legal System's device to pass assets down to heirs AND other uses, as PER THE TRUSTWRITER.

It was Dr. Barnes right to Liberty and law as an American citizen to utilize our legal system tocreate this educational artists cove that just happened to appreciate in value over the decades.

The Mingk: "Dr. Barnes bought all these before they were actually noticed as masterpieces and these assets grew in his hands."

NF: So? Dr. Barnes was well ahead of his time and knew a thing or two about investing in general terms.

The Mingk: "He died with no heirs and demanded in his will they remain untouched in his home forever. To just sit and fall apart. He demanded barely anyone be able to view any of his collection and to never even loan one piece to anyone."

NF: Not totally true. Yes he died w/out heirs but demanded that his works of art will remain in his home forever, UNMOVED OR UNSOLD and the Lincoln College was to administer UPKEEP as necessary. Dr. barnes left a substantial stipend just for basic maintenance. Dr. Barnes did not foresee any of the artworks "falling apart". Even in the 1920 - 30's era, there were several world-class Conservators that were in at least NYC that could have been retained and hired to do major restoration and preservation works. The 'loaning" of any of Dr. Barnes' collection? If that was his wish so be it.

The mingk: "He is dead. These pieces of art should be able to be out on public display. Sure it all looks pretty damned good the way he has it set up, but it's not practical."

NF: We know Dr. Barnes is deceased. Who are YOU to declare that HIS property, those pieces of art, be able to be out on public display? At least you agree that he did have the rooms set up in an artistic and enjoyable manner. "Not practical" you say? The ART students have and still would disagree with your child-like assessment of that art school.

The mingk: "That tiny old house of his could not accommodate all of them. They belong in museums and a museum of their own is perfect. And hopefully it does generate some much needed money for Philadelphia. Screw that old d-bag and his views on art (even though most of them may have been correct)."

NF: That 'tiny' old house DID accomodate all the art pieces. Who says that the art belongs in their "own" museum? Generate money for the city of Philadelphia? If Dr. Barnes wanted to generate money, he would have had the right to do that for himself while he was alive. He chose to keep that art as his art school. Philadelphia should have taken better care in their dealings w/ Dr. Barnes. But the record clearly shows that they chose to remain arrogant and power-wielding brokers with the Non-profit $$$'s thrown at Dr. Barne's Trust like spears. Dr. Barnes TRUST wanted the entire Foundation to remain a School, not a Museum for the commercial likes of the city of Philadelphia. How about that? An EDUCATIONAL choice on the part of Dr. Barnes...

In closing, the great Impressionist Matesse was quoted as the Barnes Collection was the BEST world-class rooms to view such an extensive art collection. Matesse gives Dr. Barnes some sorely needed validation to the people that post things on this IMDB site. If there is Reincarnation, I want to be the gatekeeper for this wonderful but frustrating site.

Dr. Barnes the D-Bag??? How could you even say that? How dare you???

I agree. I think it is snobby and selfish for a group of people to think they have some kind of exclusive grasp of art. As far as his wishes being violated, it sounds like he was holding a childish grudge. So why should the public be denies access to art because of a snob?

Maybe you should learn to write!