Review: 'It's not just one villain... it takes a village.'
http://shareddarkness.com/2010/03/02/art-of-the-steal.aspx
^ Nice review... funny last line. True, too.
really the saddest part of the documentary was the art writer who made the point that none of the other major museums of the US did/said anything to stop this rape of a private collection because they were intimidated by the powers involved in the theft---
and the idea that one wealthy person/charity was not willing to duke it out--say Bill Gates or Warren Buffett--in the name of fair play/honesty/integrety is just sad---and pretty representative of my perception of that strata of society...there ARE plenty of people in the US who could have afforded to gift the Barnes Foundation with enough money to have kept the dogs at bay for a while...
the guy I thought was so bad--Glanton--was a dynamic enough individual that he at least attempted to be a buffer between the thieves and their quarry--
the president of Lincoln U--in trying to maintain the intent of Barnes's will/trust (to keep the Barnes intact and free from outside influence) ultimately brought about its demise because taking Glanton out brought a much worse wolf into the fold...
I think this is a wonderful parable to some extent of what happened with AIG and other companies that went bust in the financial debacle of credit default swaps, and real estate bubbles...the boards of these companies which have a FEDUCIARY duty to shareholders did jack-all for years--were content to go with the status quo to ramp up profits and stock price -- without considering where those policies that favored greed/risk over prudent practice would eventually end...and NOTHING has happened to board members of AIG or CITI or WAMU--you did not even read about them when stories were trying to apportion blame for all this fiasco...
"...That's the beauty of argument, Joey. If you argue correctly, you're never wrong..."
http://www.csmonitor.com/The-Culture/Movies/2010/0409/The-Art-of-the-Steal-movie-review
This review April 9, 2010 from Christian Science Monitor rationalized the theft of the Barnes Foundation and the removal to Philidelphia by using the same argument that the movers/shakers used...
more people can see the works of art and that Barnes's concept of his museum as an educational venue for reaching people truly interested in art--not just tourists who look at it in the same way they might tour the new Cowboy Stadium if they are in Dallas area...was based on a knee-jerk reaction at criticism by the Philidelphia art critics--
what this writer failed to understand from the documentary was that Barnes was basically a liberal who hated people who used their power to crush anyone in their way--like Annenburg, father and son--
Barnes was a Democrate who was the distinct opposite of the Republican power brokers who were envious of Barnes's collection and his ability to appreciate those artists before other collectors/museum directors/art critics--
he wanted the art to awaken the artistic sense in individuals not be pawns in a power struggle -- which it has become...
hey==right or wrong/good or bad--they were HIS paintings and HE decided what he wanted to do with them...
the US should have stepped in if it was so important to move them to more accessible location and open viewing to more people and take them as US treasures--
better the National Gallery of Art which is owned by the people of the US so we would ultimately control 30+billion dollars of irreplacible paintings
than the Pew Trust which lied to the IRA and to the media about why it was becoming a 'charitable" trust rather than a private one...
the Pew funds some quality projects but this was just objectionable behavior...
"...That's the beauty of argument, Joey. If you argue correctly, you're never wrong..."
It IS sad that the will of Dr. Barnes, who earned his fortune the ideal way by inventing a medication that solved a big problem and manufactured it using an integrated workforce, wasn't upheld. Instead, it was subverted.
I've been to this museum and it is an almost overwhelming experience. It took us four hours to see everything. You almost rue coming across another Renoir! I think we could have taken a day or two to take it all in. There are cabinets of small sculptures that should be viewed minutely.
In short, it IS a collection best viewed as part of a course consisting of weekly classes over a two-year period as my mother did 50 years ago.
"Two more swords and I'll be Queen of the Monkey People." Roseanne
Flickfan-3 "the guy I thought was so bad--Glanton--was a dynamic enough individual that he at least attempted to be a buffer between the thieves and their quarry--"
He was bad. The whole racism lawsuit was to help bankrupt the collection. The only thing standing between the collection and the government stealing it was that $10M fund. As long as that money was sufficient to cover the costs, the collection was safe. Once Glanton blew through it, the collection was a fatten lamb. Don't think for a second that the guy that puts someone's held in a guillotine is any better than the guy who triggers it.
Glanton is the guy that pushes a business to the edge of bankruptcy and threatens that as long as he is in charge, he can keep it balanced. But if he is forced out, he threatens that someone else will come along and push it over.
Lincoln literally and willingly sold out the collection for 30 pieces of silver. There is absolutely no other way around it. They were bought out with public money to give up control of the collection.