MovieChat Forums > The Art of the Steal (2009) Discussion > Movie does not answer obvious question

Movie does not answer obvious question

posted 14 years ago by SurrenderToto
15 replies | jump to latest

It seems to me that the two main concerns of Dr. Barnes were 1) that the art remain together (which it will, at the new location) and that 2) the educational mission remain paramount. So, will the educational mission continue at the new location? Nobody's emphasizing that here. I think the movie, in an effort to paint one side as "bad guys" and heighten its entertainment value, doesn't attempt to explore this. If by raising money through exhibiting the collection more widely and making money in other ways from the art, how can this not contribute to preserving the art for posterity? It seems the anti-move people are more dedicated to sticking it to their opponents (who would open up the collection to more of humanity), and to Dr. Barnes's perverse wishes, than to the notion that art belongs to all of us. Why not use your energy and time to rally to use the new money that will be made for restoring the old location up to modern standards and then open it up to students and scholars and other interested lovers of art (who would also like to visit the grounds/gardens)?

And after all this, I still give the movie an 8 for starting a dialogue, unbalanced and skewed though it is. Thanks also to R. D. Monsoon of Philadelphia for his review.

NLO

[–] Emree23 14 years ago

Why shouldn't people want to go OUT to see work, instead of everything being moved within comfortable and easy distance?

I think the 3rd biggest point of Mr. Barnes' will (which you failed to mention) was that he did NOT want his collection to be commercialized, branded, and made profitable. He didn't want a museum-like establishment.

How much do you reckon the blokes at the new location will charge per customer?
(edit) OH WOW just checked the website. These days the foundation is charging $15 for individual admission and they want the debit card info by email. IRRITATING. Someone tell me who instated that $hi+.

I don't think Barnes' intention was to be a stingy bastard. I don't think he wanted to hoard his collection all to himself. Yes it's an inconvenient building and set up for commercial traffic, but did he want commercial traffic? No. He wanted an intimate setting, a place that people could REALLY appreciate the art and LEARN from it. Barnes wanted scholars and artists to be around his collection. He didn't bar anything and encouraged non-greedy, non-parasitic, non-slimy-bags to enjoy the work.

And why would I want to stay in stuffy Philadelphia when I can go outside of it (and not even - LM is what...5 miles away?) to visit a jewel that should be being revered as a monument and sacred place? Why does it not get that kind of respect?

OH YEAH!!! REVENUE! And money! And touristy crap!

[–] BigMamou 14 years ago

Couldn't have said it better myself!!! Well said.

[–] Noir-It-All 14 years ago

BigMamou

In your User Review, you say:
After all, what if the MoMA decides the Barnes collection belongs in Manhattan (after all it would make more money there, be seen by many more people and NOT be in Philly where Barnes specifically NEVER wanted it to be)? Think Philly could withstand the onslaught of power and money that institution could generate? I think not! Heck, while we're at it let's move the Frick to Orlando where it will get many more visitors sitting next to DisneyWorld.

My understanding is that Annenberg donated most of his collection to MomA (or was it NY Metropolitan?) because he felt more people would see it there than at the Phila. Museum of Art. And, the film points out that Annenberg's will also stipulates that the collection will remain in NY.

"Two more swords and I'll be Queen of the Monkey People." Roseanne

[–] Scion013 14 years ago

Also, the opening of the Barnes Foundation to the public put a stop to the centralization of the foundation being a benefit to the students.

[–] Noir-It-All 14 years ago

My mother took the course, weekly classes lasting two years, in 1960-1962.

Dr. Barnes NEVER meant the collection to be accessible; he intended for the collection to be part of a teaching environment.

Dr. Barnes NEVER meant the collection to be anywhere but Merion, certainly NOT in Philadelphia, handled by the Phila. Museum of Art, or by any consortium including the mobster's son, Walter Annenberg. (Annenberg was also close to Frank Rizzo.)

Didn't the trust include a $200,000 annual operating fee that was typically underspent? The unspent portion could have been set aside for capital expenses like fixing the windows, heating and systems.

Dr. Barnes invested his profits (from a medication he patented and manufactured by an integrated workforce) in post-impressionist art before it was cool. He died leaving explicit instructions on all of this. MontCo did try to keep it in MontCo but the board of directors' intent was to move the collection to Philadephia.

What goes around comes around. Annenberg's will concerning HIS art collection should be challenged next.

"Two more swords and I'll be Queen of the Monkey People." Roseanne

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Noir-It-All 14 years ago

/I don't care that much what a misanthrope thought back in the 50s./
I feel that a will is a will, personality aside. Before the 50s, the Establishment disregarded his collection.

/what great artists have come from his teaching environment and hoarding of the art anyway?/ He didn't hoard it exactly. I admit I favored expanding visiting hours. Forming great artists wasn't his objective.

/who or what would be harmed by the move?/
Physically, the stakeholders claim the art will be arranged just as it was in the current, original building. I'm sure they will move them safely. Certain works have traveled already for exhibits in Phila. and elsewhere.

"Two more swords and I'll be Queen of the Monkey People." Roseanne

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Noir-It-All 14 years ago

I wouldn't think so but I think the film showed the efforts to make it look like breaking the will was a rescue.

As far as robbery vs rescue, I still see it as breaking someone's will.

"Two more swords and I'll be Queen of the Monkey People." Roseanne

[–] macktan894 14 years ago

The art was private property and its use governed by a will. If art is legislated to be something that can't be purchased by a private person, that's a different thing. If he had bought all the art and then ordered it torched upon his death, it's his money. He bought it. Just because you value it doesn't make it yours.

[–] daryl-b-t 13 years ago

It's a bit like asking who owns the Pyramids? Would it be okay if the Egyptians wished to knock them down? How did you feel when the Taliban destroyed ancient cliff statures of the Buddha?

These things in a sense are a part of the human heritage of all of us. It is wrong not to regard them as being held in trust for future generations.

Clearly Dr Barnes felt the same way.

How do you feel about people chopping down rain forests?

[–] reynardtfox 11 years ago

So, daryl-b-t, should the Brits return the Elgin Marbles to Greece? Or keep them, as they claim they were/are safer/more accessible to future generations there?

[–] daryl-b-t 11 years ago

Presumably this has been well thought through before but I'll have a shot.

In principle I'd say they should be returned if the following are met.

- Their preservation for future generations is assured.
- Greece legally own them, or there is a strong desire in Greece for their return. If its deemed the Brits have legal ownership it would be up to Greece to make some kind of financial settlement unless otherwise waived by the museum.
- Allowance made for casting a replica in their place if desired by the museum.
- They are made equally available to the public in Greece.

I think then, the issues around both the historical value and respect for the culture from which they came would be met.

I can imagine museums around the world are moving toward being custodians of, rather than owners of culturally significant items. In Australia that is the case with many Aboriginal artifacts.

[–] stone_free 11 years ago

I'm a Brit and I definitely think the Elgin Marbles should be returned to Greece as long as you're first and last items are met.

It also annoys me as a half Scot, that Logie Baird is said to be the inventor of Television when his method is not the one that ended up being used. I would say it was Alan Archibald Campbell-Swinton (also Philo Farnsworth), but hey he's still Scottish:)

[–] Malchik81 11 years ago

Unbalanced? After reading this sentence I'm pretty sure you didn't watch the documentary. Because if you had watched the documentary you would have noticed the 10 or so people who declined to be interviewed and provide "their" side of the story. Sorry - sometimes in life, there is a right and wrong side on an issue. And it often turns out the wrong side doesn't like getting interviewed.