MovieChat Forums > The Art of the Steal (2009) Discussion > move to philly: doesn't violate will; it...

move to philly: doesn't violate will; it serves greater public interest

posted 13 years ago by nubbytubbybiatchesgalore
8 replies | jump to latest

personally, i think the will is being honoured, "aussi pret que possible" by

1) not having any corporate or private interest profit finanically from the collection

2) ensuring the widest possible number of the "non-elite" he championed so much get a chance to see it

3) ensuring the collection serves in the continued education of art (any money made from the collection goes to public schools and other artistic and educational grants. every pbs doc i have ever seen was funded by the annenberg and pew charitable trust. )

4) ensuring the collection stays together, and will be shown in nearly identical rooms

the bottom line is that the public interest is better served with this collection in downtown philly. that, at least, was my conclusion from having seen the documentary.

and i couldn't help but reflect on the implications of a statement made by one the interviewees at the end (former licoln board member i believe): "the paintings were his, to do with as he pleased". does this mean he could have just stipulated in his will that the paintings be burned, or kept locked up in storage in perpetuity?

he may have bought the paintings, but it seems, at least based on his own "dewey" democratic theory of education, that the paintings belong to the actual painters themselves, to the public who have a right to enjoy them and, and to painters who have a right to study them. i dont see how the move to a new building takes away from any of this

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] coolsiteall 13 years ago

It might be for the greater good, but Barnes will wanted to keep it in Marion. Which probably is quite possible as the movie showed. Besides he wanted it to be for educational purposes, which a Museum isn't. So cleary it isn't anywhere near his will, sending it to China would probably be closer. So the question should be, can we completely forget his will for the greater good. Which I am not a fan of, but can be argued for.

[–] daryl-b-t 13 years ago

The collection has become a world wide treasure. It's not that they want to violate the conditions of the trust or the Will but rather it's no longer acceptable for something so unique and valuable to not be accessible. Like the Pyramids these things also exist as a part of our greater human heritage. They belong to all of us in a sense.

It's special case that requires a one off solution. I can't see the original facility being able to cater to the needs of making the collection accessible. Considering there are no surviving heirs and the need for the state to protect this valuable collection I'd be able to live with breaking the letter of the Will, they are after all honoring the spirit of the collection by displaying it in a similar arrangement to the owner. Protect, maintain and allow access. The original owner's memory shouldn't matter too much if these things are met.

[–] jimmysmitsimdb 12 years ago

nubbytubbybiatchesgalore "the bottom line is that the public interest is better served with this collection in downtown philly."

So you don't care about the law or private property?

[–] nubbytubbybiatchesgalore 12 years ago

in no way did i infer in anything i wrote the sentiments you falsely attribute to me. the fact the you respond to my detailed argument with a mere few words which in no way address a single point therein attests to this. the law is to fulfill the will "aussi pret que possible," and my post details how the spirit of the law is best fulfilled by the move . the property was owned first by a now dead painter and second by a now dead purchaser, a dead purchaser who intended for his private property to best serve the public interest who collectively would take ownership. the question you need to answer is which laws and whose property rights are being violated by having the collection in downtown philly. and i think you'll see if you bother to study the law that laws and property rights are enshrined specifically in the service of the public interest. that's what "social contract", the basis of every liberal democracy, means. good night to you, and good luck.

[–] jimmysmitsimdb 12 years ago

"a dead purchaser who intended for his private property to best serve the public interest who collectively would take ownership"

And you are wrong right there. Those were certainly not his intentions.

And along with your other points in the OP "does this mean he could have just stipulated in his will that the paintings be burned, or kept locked up in storage in perpetuity?"

Yes. He purchased them and he owned them outright. He could destroy them or put the collection in storage for perpetuity. That's the point of private property.

"the paintings belong to the actual painters themselves, to the public who have a right to enjoy them"

Again you are missing the point of private property and are delving into socialism. He owned the paintings just as much as you own your watch. If you want to make the argument that it would be a tragedy if the collection was put into storage then I would agree with you.

But the point of the movie was that the paintings are private property, were protected by a ironclad will, and none of that mattered due to corruption and public money because politicians wanted the paintings to use.

[–] nubbytubbybiatchesgalore 12 years ago

look, i saw this almost exactly two years ago, and even i remember the part about barnes' commitment to john dewey. some people call that socialism. those people tend to neither understand socialism nor contract law.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Democracy_and_Education

happy reading.

and i'll take your inability to address for a second time the points in my OP as your tacit acceptance of those points, and as a consequence you're agreement with me that the move to philly would not violate the will.

But the point of the movie was that the paintings are private property

no, the point of the movie was to present a heavily biased one sided argument. independent thinkers are able to see through this. to wit: here is the "consensus review" on RT: "deeply esoteric and unapologetically one-sided"

He owned the paintings just as much as you own your watch

if what you took out of the movie was that he considered his purchased paintings as no different than his purchased wrist watches, i would again suggest that you completely missed the point of barnes collection.

And you are wrong right there. Those were certainly not his intentions.

yes, they were. see: the points outlined in my OP and your inability to address them. then, see: the actual court proceedings. or perhaps you think the judicial system of the state of pennsylvania is intent on enforcing socialism.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]