It is his art, not the city the Philadelphia's, not the people's, not society's, no one but Mr. Barnes owns this art.
Period.
It belongs where and how he wanted it. If he wanted it locked in a stinky basement, or in his attic, or in his tool shed, etc. then that's where it belongs. IT IS HIS ART! NOT YOUR'S PHILADELPHIA!
It belongs at the original Barnes Foundation where he explicitly stated in his will where it belongs.
THESE PEOPLE ARE CROOKS.
yes they are--and the fact that the people who did the stealing are supposedly so "reputable" is what makes it that much more gagging...
I can't believe that Barnes nor his wife left any blood relation who might have acted as a personal voice to say--STOP
and don't you regret after seeing him in just a few clips that Julian Bond was not a trustee and make the head of the board--
his reputaion, his education, his sense of rectitude would have been a major deterrant in this huge theft...
"...That's the beauty of argument, Joey. If you argue correctly, you're never wrong..."
/and don't you regret after seeing him in just a few clips that Julian Bond was not a trustee and make the head of the board--
his reputation, his education, his sense of rectitude would have been a major deterrent in this huge theft... /
Yes, I agree.
Also, I agree to the title of this thread. It WAS his collection bought with the profits from HIS patented medication.
Actually, it is inventors like Dr. Barnes who will bring money to the economy.
"Two more swords and I'll be Queen of the Monkey People." Roseanne
Mr. Barnes is dead.
share
Noting there is a user's review that states this movie is propaganda that neglects to tell the other side of the story. I can't understand what that story would consist of. This art was private property from what I understand, bought by a rich person for the purpose of creating an educational concern. He left directions about how the art should be handled. Aren't wills valid anymore? Or private property?
Well, knowing how my relatives acted when my grandmother died, I guess I've answered my own question.
[deleted]
but electors are elected based on the vote of the people and under "good faith" are supposed to vote based on the constituency.
the electoral college was never a safeguard against the common voter who did not know how to choose.
the electoral college was created to give the states power. if the electoral college did not exist then the popular vote could be concentrated in one state, theoretically.
as far as your last statement. viewing an art collection isnt a need.
[deleted]
Our society has chosen not to allow a Craigslist "curb alert" approach to private property after death. It was his, he made very CLEAR how it was to be handled. Nobody cares what you or I think, and thats how it should be. Welcome to capitalism, glad you could join us. IT IS/WAS HIS. Until someone time travels and says owning art is illegal without giving full access to everyone in the republic, case closed. As for the "he is dead" argument, that's not relevant as, again, our society extends his rights beyond death.
You crapped on your own point. "Many people" and "Almost everyone" are not the same. Greater good in no way shape or form is viewing specific art. It may be YOUR good served but that's not a legitimate reason. You don't drop dead, get cancer, kill babies or ruin the economy by not letting pretentious dbags get what they feel they deserve to have access to. Maybe if he had possessed all the art on earth and all references to and copies of that art then maybe the greater good could be brought to the table. Greater good is served by allowing only the students and educators full and complete access as it serves as a method to preserve the pieces. Not to mention that the collection IS available for viewing, just not en mass.
Add to that the fact that one of the greatest elements of the collection is the man who assembled it and the manner in which it was assembled. That in itself is a monumental piece of art and altering that in my view is in no way different from taking a kitchen sponge to scrub off a spaghetti stain on your Picaso. That makes this theft decidedly against the greater good. The only reason to move the thing is money, and I don't recall the law having a "well if you want it so bad FINE. Take it" clause to usurp a legal document. The Barnes collection very obviously includes the manner it was arranged and where and how it was housed. How are future generations going to learn the works of this master artist if it is destroyed? The only way that will be recorded is on film and reproduction. If reproduction is adequate to get the full scope of a piece then no reason exists to move it. You can simply forge a new Barnes collection and leave the originals where they belong.
In closing, tl;dr :P
[deleted]
the dead dont own s h i t.
and if you're actually arguing that there is nothing technically wrong about stipulating in his will that the paintings be destroyed because he exchanged money for their ownership, you dont know s h i t
give the phoquing paintings back to the painters or their heirs.
The painters sold those paintings to Barnes.
Which means he paid them money in exchange for the paintings.
Which means they, or their heirs had no claim to the paintings.
The Barnes Foundation owns the paintings. No one else.
There's this concept called private property rights. Without it there can be no such thing as individual liberty. No such thing as freedom. If a richer, more politically powerful entity can simply take your private property--whether that's your painting, your stereo, your wallet, or your house--you live in a state of tyranny.
If you sold me your 1991 Suburban four months ago and I died tomorrow without an heir--BUT I stated in my will that all my worldly possessions go to Acme Charity, would you have a right to the Suburban simply because I was now dead? Of course not.
If you owned a single Warhol painting that you bought when he was unknown, and you had a legal will stating that it go to your uncle Joe, would the Carnegie Museum of Art in Warhol's hometown of Pittsburgh have the right to take that painting from uncle Joe because it was "in the public interest?" Of course not.
You have no concept of the law, or any wish to recognize it. That either makes you some form of anarchist, ultra-Communist, or simply an ignorant, supplicant fool who wishes for the State to control every aspect of life on earth.
It was his art. He unfortunately gave control to Lincoln University. He should have had kids.
share[deleted]
"The only reason to move the thing is money"
Patently untrue. The MAIN reason to shift the collection is due to the numbers of people who would wish to see what has become an internationally known art treasure. The existing building and location cannot cater to this need.
The original owner and heirs are dead. Ask yourself what you would like to see happen to the collection? No one wants to violate the Will but it would be a crime not for people to be able to see the art, whatever the original owner's sympathies. It's part of our collective human heritage.
I liked the outcome. It's a compromise. It seems sensible. It's not something you'd do every time but in this case I'd go with it.
daryl-b-t "The original owner and heirs are dead. Ask yourself what you would like to see happen to the collection? No one wants to violate the Will but it would be a crime not for people to be able to see the art, whatever the original owner's sympathies. It's part of our collective human heritage. "
What "you" want to see happen to the art collection is irrelevant. Everyone in the movie who wanted the art to be moved wanted to violate the will. The crime is the breaking of the will not the "crime" of not letting people see it. The collection is private property.
So by way of example would you answer a couple of questions?
-Who do the Pyramids belong to?
-If the Egyptians decided to demolish them would they have the right?
daryl-b-t "So by way of example would you answer a couple of questions?
-Who do the Pyramids belong to?
-If the Egyptians decided to demolish them would they have the right?"
The Egyptian government. The Egyptian government, yes.
Well there's a higher principle that says the Pyramids belong to all people, at some level at least, as part of our common human heritage. Ethically the Egyptians have a duty to preserve such treasures on moral grounds and sovereign authority over them to do so but not to the extent that it would be right to cause their destruction. Likewise it was considered a crime when the Taliban destroyed Buddhist statues in Afghanistan.
So I'd suggest with such a vast collection of art treasures there are moral concerns as well as legal ones. Which boils down further to the morality of doing what is thought right vs the moral rightness of obeying the letter of the law.
daryl-b-t "Well there's a higher principle that says the Pyramids belong to all people, at some level at least, as part of our common human heritage. Ethically the Egyptians have a duty to preserve such treasures on moral grounds and sovereign authority over them to do so but not to the extent that it would be right to cause their destruction. Likewise it was considered a crime when the Taliban destroyed Buddhist statues in Afghanistan.
So I'd suggest with such a vast collection of art treasures there are moral concerns as well as legal ones. Which boils down further to the morality of doing what is thought right vs the moral rightness of obeying the letter of the law. "
I agree with you 100%, in the first paragraph, except Egypt has a sovereign right over their land. It would be a huge tragedy and a cultural loss if they decided to destroy the pyramids. But it would still be their right because they own the pyramids and the land.
Your second paragraph is troubling. The law is what matters No society wants their judges exercising morality and circumventing the law because of what they thought was right.
It was considered a crime when the Taliban destroyed those Buddhist statues because that was a naked religious crime of sacred objects they did not own.
I'm not against people moving art, or anything, to a larger arena so more people could enjoy it. Unless it is private property and the moving was against the owner's wishes. Don't think for a second that the people who want to move the collection is doing it for pure motives of the public good. Every single one of those people are looking to make as much money or generate power as they can off the collection.
The law is what matters No society wants their judges exercising morality and circumventing the law because of what they thought was right.