“The Art of the Steal,” a documentary directed by Don Argott and released in February, brought to light the insufficiently-acknowledged art scandal that undermined Albert C. Barnes’ will in regards to his private art collection.† Barnes intended for his collection to be a freestanding educational institution, not a museum in the conventional sense, and only open to the public on a limited basis.† However, following his death, his intentions for the institution went unnoticed by people of higher power who had larger aspirations for the artwork.
An early animosity between Barnes and the socialites of Philadelphia caused him to realize that he wanted his collection of art to remain private, even after his death.† He recognized more value in the presentation of the artwork than most conventional museums did, and said that, “The main function of the museum has been to serve as a pedestal upon which a clique of socialites pose as patrons of the arts.”
Clearly stated in his will, Barnes insisted that the collection would not become a museum, that it would remain in Merion as a school and that the paintings would never be loaned or sold under any circumstance. After confusing battles over rights to the paintings, several significant changes to the board of the foundation, and many conflicting opinions on what was best for the establishment, the decision was made to move the collection to a new museum on the Philadelphia parkway.
While clearly a violation of Barnes’ will, the officials behind the monumental decision seemed blinded by little else than the $25 billion price assessment of the overall collection.
Barnes’ unrivaled collection of late nineteenth and early twentieth century Post-Impressionist art contained iconic artists’ work, such as CÈzanne, Gauguin, Matisse, Picasso, Renoir, Degas, Manet, Monet and van Gogh.
Several of the paintings included in the collection were made specifically for Barnes, establishing an essentially undeterminable value for much of the collection.
Through the discovery of a successful venereal disease vaccination during college, Barnes was able to make his fortune, which he then spent carefully to build his private art collection. Barnes was ahead of his time artistically, and had a well-established eye for art of the period.† He also had the advantage of collecting early twentieth century art before the Museum of Modern Art and other contemporary museums began recognizing the value in the work of the time, allowing him the ability to assemble a collection that rivals any modern day museum.
Barnes not only had art, but significant art, by significant artists.† For example, Henri Matisse’s “Le Bonheur de vivre (The Joy of Life)”, Georges Seurat’s “The Models”, Paul CÈzanne’s “The Card Players”, and many other irreplaceable examples of Impressionist work were among the expansive collection.
Ultimately, the documentary outlines the struggle between priorities in the art world: the monetary value versus the artistic value of art and its availability to the public. It also brings to question the rights of the owner to such monumental, influential, and invaluable art.† Having paid the price for the art, how does the public truly perceive the owner’s rights to determine how the art is displayed and made available?
Do we as the public hold the assumption that we too have a right to that art, privately owned or not?† The documentary takes a strong stance in its opinion on this subject, which feeds to many of the biased interviews throughout, yet it still accomplishes the task of making the viewer question how we truly value art.
?