[Updated] Critic's Notebook: 'The Art of the Steal: The Untold Story of the Barnes Foundation'

 

[For the record: A previous version of this post incorrectly said that the film “The Art of the Steal: the Untold Story of the Barnes Foundation” shows that Pew Charitable Trusts Foundation President Rebecca Rimel gave false testimony in a court hearing. The film does not show that. The Times regrets the error.]

“The Art of the Steal: The Untold Story of the Barnes Foundation” is a riveting — and tragic — documentary film chronicling the gratuitous ruin of a school outside Philadelphia that houses an incomparable art collection. It's a classic story of destroying the village in order to save it.

Except this little saga comes with an unexpected twist: “Saving” the Barnes turns out to have been a sham, as the title's claim of artful theft implies. (Full disclosure: I was interviewed for the film and appear, uncompensated, in it.) That slowly evolving turn of events finally leaves a viewer slack-jawed and angry.

No doubt it's also central to the film's largely rapturous reception in recent weeks at film festivals in Toronto and New York. (It screens Wednesday night at the Mann 6 in Hollywood as part of AFI Fest; national release is slated for February.) You leave the theater energized but frustrated by the grim sense of needless waste, a dull ache roiling the pit of your stomach.

The Barnes Foundation is a school built more than 80 years ago by Albert C. Barnes (1872-1951), a cantankerous Philadelphia physician who became wealthy after developing a patent medicine. Modern art is the school's primary tool, while architect Paul Cret's specially designed building set in a 12-acre arboretum forms a unique container integral to the school's curriculum.

To build it Barnes assembled important examples of African sculpture, Navajo rugs, Pennsylvania Dutch furniture, decorative metalwork and more. These he displayed in distinctive arrangements with mostly Modern art.

The staggering art collection includes 69 paintings by Cézanne, 59 by Matisse, 46 by Picasso, 21 by Chaim Soutine, 18 by Henri Rousseau, 16 by Modigliani, 11 by Degas, seven by Van Gogh, six by Georges Seurat and four each by Manet and Monet. Some are among those iconic artists' greatest works.

The holdings in Renoir are uneven. But with 181 to choose from, there's more than enough Renoir to satisfy.

This holistic ensemble embodies an American philosophical tradition called democratic pragmatism, the defining intellectual movement between the Civil War and the Cold War. Begun by such philosophers as Charles S. Peirce and William James, then put into practice by the likes of Jane Addams, Alain Locke and John Dewey, who was Barnes' closest adviser, the progressive doctrine shaped virtually all our modern ideas of education, politics, civil rights law and religion.

The Barnes Foundation — pragmatism's singular artistic incarnation — is the most important cultural monument America produced in the first half of the 20th century.

“The Art of the Steal” lays out the foundation's complex but manageable administrative and financial problems that arose in the 1990s. The awful heart of the film, however, is the subsequent maneuvering to dislodge its valuable art collection, now estimated to be worth more than $20 billion, and move it to a tourist destination five miles away in downtown Philadelphia. That plan, now underway, represents everything Barnes himself worked to avoid.

As the film unfolds, not one of the businessmen, politicians or power brokers engaged in “saving” this irreplaceable village has the slightest clue why the Barnes even matters. Focused instead on their own personal agendas, the pseudo-saviors emerge as a cast of venal characters — by turns unwitting in their ignorance and heinous in their calculation.

A layer of cowardice is added because most of them, with the noteworthy (if hapless) exception of Pennsylvania Gov. Edward G. Rendell, declined interview requests from director Don Argott and producer Sheena M. Joyce. Their silence loudly resonates.

Sadly, the loudest belongs to three local philanthropies. They used their vast wealth as a lever to pry the valuable art collection loose rather than keep the Barnes intact.  [For the record: A previous version of this post incorrectly said that the film “The Art of the Steal: the Untold Story of the Barnes Foundation” shows that Pew Charitable Trusts Foundation President Rebecca Rimel gave false testimony in a court hearing. The film does not show that. The Times regrets the error.]

Tacit opprobrium is heaped on two other potential players, mostly through their general absence from events. Missing in action were the press and most of the art profession.

Locally, the news pages of the Philadelphia Inquirer acted as official stenographer for establishment views, while its editorial page was chief cheerleader for the “steal.” Regionally, culture desks at the Washington Post, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal left developments largely unquestioned. Typical was a fawning 2007 Journal profile of Pew Charitable Trusts Foundation President Rebecca Rimel, which allowed her to deny any direct role without asking about her court testimony.

Area artists and art museums were faced with the daunting, monolithic unanimity of their region's biggest cultural donors. Art critics individually complained, but nationally professional associations of museum directors, curators and college professors barely murmured. That left Barnes Foundation students and neighbors as slender reeds against a torrential wind.

“The Art of the Steal” relies on John Anderson's important 2003 book, “Art Held Hostage: The Battle Over the Barnes Collection,” as a sturdy guide. (Anderson is interviewed at length.) But the film emerges as a powerful indictment in its own right. It takes sides, as documentaries don't always do.

The film quotes Matisse, who described the Barnes as “the only sane place for art” that he saw during his 1930 U.S. sojourn. The filmmakers, forced to choose between a brilliant Modern artist and the  closemouthed bureaucrats and provincial knuckleheads now engineering the ruin of the Barnes Foundation, know exactly whom to get behind.

-- Christopher Knight

Photos: Former Barnes student Nick Tinari protesting the planned move to downtown Philadelphia; Albert C. Barnes in the Cret building's main gallery, with paintings by Cezanne and Seurat. Credit: Sundance Selects

Related:

Architect Robert Venturi slams planned Barnes Foundation move

AFI Fest screenings that are worth the trip

Comments

[courtney norman]

Isn't Art- for ALL of the people! The Barnes foundation has always been an elitist organization- being from Philadelphia i know quite well how challenged it was to try to view these works of Art... Sorry i believe that this has gone on way to long- this should belong to all the people not just some! Tear down these barriers
and open up those doors & let "us" witness these masterpeices in humble surroundings! BOOHOO to all of those that have been keeping us away..

[Donald Frazell]

We should go back to such an approach, the pseudo modern white cubes have sterilized creative art, made them into sales boutiques, not places to commune with Mankind. Which was Barnes intent, and all true artists, as Matisse testifies too. Until we get back to this approach, and view art as being a part of humanities activities, of them, rather than apart and seperate, we will continue our decline.

Art has a role in mankind, not more or less important than any other. But is a necessary part of who WE are. We must get over the Self expression, and make works expressIVE of Us. As it always was. And must be.

a Prime example
art collegia delenda est

[NANCY HERMAN]

Once again Christopher Knight says it like it is. The Barnes move is NOT A DONE DEAL as those involved have not enough money to create a new museum and public sentiment is growing to keep the Barnes where it is, thanks to THE ART OF THE STEAL and the people who speak out publicly like Christopher Knight. LA is lucky to have such a fine reporter.

[Woody Tanaka]

As a Philadelphia area native, I support the move. I think that what is lost to those who are trying to preserve the collection in Merion is more than compensated for by permitting the public greater access to this work by housing it in a modern facility in an accessable location.

I, for one, would love to be able to see this collection on a regular basis, something that is simply impossible for me, with the astounding limitations on public viewing now in place in Merion.

[Donald Frazell]

It is supposedly only five miles away from its new location, so instead of building a new edifice to corporate and individual greatness, attempt to change the rules as to admitance. Barnes was thumbing his nose at the establishment of his time, one which has continued, though in changed appearance. Still a wolf in sheeps clothing. Leave it as is, but add public transportation from the Phily Museum of Art if need be. Far cheaper, and keeping to the Arboretums and Foundations purpose, than this monstrosity.

[Leah Erickson]

Dr. Barnes created a legal "trust" for his collection. In breaking the "trust" by moving the art a couple of miles to Philadelphia, the law has been broken. A whole lot of people could and should be held accountable. So much for legal documents....I guess pure greed is the dominant force.

[Paul Krik]

The people behind the Barnes move are criminals and should be prosecuted. We can only hope that this movie serves as the starting point for reversing the terrible injustices -- no crimes -- that have been perpetuated in the name of 'the people.' People are making money on the Barnes move. It's not that hard to see who. Prosecute them.

[Exeterite]

My understanding is that the Barnes Collection was housed in a structure in Merion, PA that was a former residence, not a school. Am I wrong?

[Beate Kirmse]

Dr. Barnes only allowed people to view his collection and attend his art courses who supported his theories, everybody criticizing his theory was not allowed to view his collection or attend the courses. He did this because he was angry about the Philadelphia art establishment of his time who made fun of him and his art theory. I was lucky to hear about the Barnes collection the first time when I lived in Munich in 1995. Around 75 pieces of the collection were send on a world exhibition tour to raise money (after a huge legal battle) to enable the foundation to care for the masterpieces appropriately; the foundation was running out of money. It was one of the most beautifully curated exhibitions I remember ever seen. The exhibition at the Haus der Kunst in Munich was so successful that they kept the museum open 24 hours for a few days at the end of the exhibition. I went there at 2 AM one night and the line to get in was still going around the building. After moving to Philadelphia in 1998 I visited the exhibit in Merion many times and was always thrilled and angry at the same time. Thrilled to see the incredible works of art, angry how poorly they were hung and lit and how little of their beauty could be revealed in that environment. I consider myself very lucky that I had the pleasure viewing some of the Barnes collection pieces in their whole beauty, well lit and in condition these works of art deserve to be displayed in Munich. I think the artists of these pieces deserve to have their masterpieces be shown to the world in a professional way and the viewer should have the opportunity to see the whole potential of the artwork. I am very happy about the move and that the artwork is finally receiving the treatment it deserves.

[Mario Dexter]

Let's see:
1. The major press outlets and culture critics of the City failed to cover the controversy although that is the entire purpose of the press: to report controversy.
2. Many art and cultural organizations that might or should have spoken out were intimidated into an appalling silence for fear of upsetting their philanthropic major donors or political connections to the Board of Directors.
3. The building and site were uniquely designed by the museum's founder to house and exhibit its special collection.
4. A proposed move into an uninspired modernist designed building on parkland of the local government.
5. A series of egoistic maniacs trying to carry out their own personal agendas without a clue or acknowledgement of the unique connection between the original site/building and its collection.
6. An inability to raise the ridiculously high sum of money necessary to build the proposed new building.

This must be an article about Los Angeles' own unique Southwest Museum and the efforts of the venal Board of Directors of the Autry Museum to practice the "Art of the Steal" to take the Southwest's collections from its rightful cultural place. Right?

[Andrew]

Yikes- a paranoid critical reading of the Barnes move "to a tourist destination 5 miles away" - now sadly within reach of public transit and the 100,000 school kids of Philadelphia. No longer will you need a car and an advanced registration. Now you can see the original collection in its same layout AND the hundreds of works never seen due to lack of space. Now you can continue to visit the original Cret mansion and arboretum which will be preserved. 

[Catherine]

While visiting the Barnes about two years ago, a student overheard me refer to the collection as a museum. He stepped forward and said, "The Barnes is not a museum; it is a school." He went on to inform us that Dr. Barnes curated the collection and chose to display it in a place and a manner that he believed would most benefit students studying art at the Barnes. (For basic background on the genesis of what is properly called The Barnes Foundation, go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnes_Foundation). Dr. Barnes' mission was to give students studying art at the school unlimited access to the art so that they could see, up close, exactly how the painters executed the works. In effect, as I understand it, breaking the trust violated Barnes' basic goals and objectives for his personal collection.

[Yelena]

I visited Barnes Foundation in Merion in 2000. My knees gave in when I walked into the first gallery. Having visited great museums in Moscow, St. Petersburg, New York and Washington, I have never seen anything like Barnes. The amount and quality of paintings on those walls are incomparable to any museum in the world. However, while observing the masterpieces I couldn't help but notice how tight they were hanged and how much harder it was for me to concentrate on each individual painting because of that. As the impressionist and modernist art lover, I wished this collection was somewhere else and curated by professionals. I still do. However, yesterday I saw the Art of the Steal and now my feelings are mixed. I feel really bad that wishes of Dr. Barnes are being so bluntly disregarded for purely commercial reasons and not a single individual or organization can do anything to stop it.

[Niko niko]

The all white affluent suburb of Philly known as Lower Merion -where the foundation resides- has proven itself to be a spoiled whiny brat. They do not want too many people from the city (read non affluent, non white) to see the collection. This has proven to be a financial burden on the foundation due to a lack of revenue, not to mention the fact that Barnes wanted inner-city (white AND black) youth to have access to the art collection.

IF Lower Merion had been willing to increase access to the collection in its present home, I would think twice about the decision to move the collection. However, the residents of Lower Merion, in true blue blooded arrogance have acted like a bunch of spoiled brats who want everything for themselves and can't give back a thing.

I support the move to Philly, and while sad that the collection will no longer be housed in the home that Barnes so painstakingly built for it, I'm happy and hopeful that its new home will reward the spirit of Barnes' mission in ways that the stuck up residents of Lower Merion would never in a million years dream of doing.

Peace

[Donald Frazell]

Part of seeing teh Barnes collections was limited to an all black school, as Barnes wanted to tweak these very people. It is close to downtown, and just like the Huntington out here, could be made available. By the way, Kobe Bryant went to high school there. A shuttle service could easily ahve been done, and still can be. Thats where the fight should be, not wasting monies on a new museum, when with some slight modifications the Foundation would be fine.

I dont know the whole story, but looks like both groups are wrong, how shockingly suprising. Riiiiiight.