The New "Barnes"
I've read most of the reviews now and am convinced I will most likely thoroughly enjoy visiting the new location of the art collected originally by Dr. Albert Barnes and installed in a very particular way and designed to be experienced via precise instructions at his home outside Philadelphia. What I'm also sure of, though, is that the new museum has no business using the good doctor's name in affiliation with what was clearly against his wishes.
Arguments can and have been made that art is for posterity and that no megalomaniac has the right to dictate to future generations how they have to view work that belongs to all of humankind. And while I'd agree with that, I think a stronger argument can be made that no one has the right to co-opt another person's vision, let alone their name, in the service of something they would have strongly objected to.
Call it the Philadelphia Museum of "whatever will draw the most tourists," but no one has the right to call it "The Barnes" in my opinion. At least respect the man's wishes enough to divorce his name from a venture he was crystal clear he opposed.
posted by Edward_ at
9:01 AM
15 Comments:
It unfortunately happens all the time.
Wow , I live out in the Wastelands of the west and just got a invite for a private viewing of the Barnes Museum .Travel and lodging not included. I am novice when it comes to art, I have never heard of Dr Barnes until now, His collection is Mind Blowing.
It's not his collection that I take any issue with. It is mind blowing. It's anyone's right, even posthumously, to not have their name and reputation used in ways they wouldn't have chosen. It's disrespectful. The Foundation's new members are abusing his legacy for their own goals in my opinion. Take the art and build a new museum, whatever the law will permit you to do. Present the art in a better context for the coming generations who deserve to see it. Just don't capitalize on the doctor's efforts and reputation in a manner inconsistent with his wishes.
I hear ya Edward , I know whats going on now . I found this movie.
The Art of The Steal - Official Trailer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMe3r9PLtpI
I am a Philadelphia native and have followed this debate for many many years. I absolutely agree with you. I was not entirely happy with the decision to move the work while at the same time understanding it too. You are right, they should at least remove his name from the place since it does not resemble his plan for his collection any longer. After all of these years they should stop flogging his memory.
They're rubbing his nose in it. It's greedy, vicious, illegal and immoral and your right, it's not the Barnes. I hope the mother fucker haunts the place.
I have to disagree. Dr. Barnes was a brilliant collector, but his bitterness, resentment, and anger got in the way of people appreciating his strengths. By reframing the work so that it can be fully seen, and seen by a greater number of people (it was an insane situation to have one of the world's great collections housed in a suburban residential area that couldn't be accessed by the public without disrupting the neighbors), the public at large can finally see him for his greatness. I'm not sure how one could look at the collection in Barnes' vision without also feeling his bitterness and being resentful of the poor viewing conditions. I think a new museum (which I haven't had the pleasure of seeing yet) actually honors him more than following his harsh and strict will could.
I think a new museum (which I haven't had the pleasure of seeing yet) actually honors him more than following his harsh and strict will could.
Sorry, but that argument sounds to me like the argument that it "honors" Holocaust victims (or anyone really) to posthumously baptize them as Mormons. If it was clearly NOT who they were when they were living, it's only about the baptizers' world view, and cannot be twisted to truly "honor" them in any respectful way.
I think the Mormon baptism argument is completely off base. What I am saying is that Barnes was a brilliant collector (one of the greatest ever) but a dismal, horrific curator (certainly one of the worst ever). He was a horrible curator because he was completely blinded by bitterness and anger at the Philadelphia "elite" and the art world in general. Now the world can see what a great collector he was without having to suffer his bitterness.
I don't think Barnes should have the right to deny a proper viewing of a world heritage collection because of an embittered spirit any more than he would have of destroying his collection upon his death. Besides, what do you think is more important, an artist's wishes or a curator's? To say that the collection should stay as Barnes wished is to place the curator above all else.
I think the Mormon baptism argument is completely off base
why?
Besides, what do you think is more important, an artist's wishes or a curator's?
It depends on the context. If you're presenting a "Picasso" under the name "Picasso" and it's clear the author of the work is Pablo Picasso, then of course the artist's wishes are more important.
If, however, you're presenting "The Barnes" collection, under the name "Barnes," and the assertion is the author of the total experience is Dr. Barnes, then the curator's wishes should be respected.
Otherwise, change the name.
Removing his name from the collection (no matter how well intentioned) will merely complete the theft. They've stolen his paintings, now they can erase his name and memory, and rewrite art history. (Not for nothing, but the guy was a bit loopy.)
The Mormon argument is off base because there is nothing about posthumously baptizing someone that honors them, whereas, showing the Barnes collection to the public honors his talent in becoming one of the world's greatest collectors. Maybe the title of the museum should be "The Barnes Collection (curated by someone else)."
The Mormon argument is off base because there is nothing about posthumously baptizing someone that honors them
My understanding is that people are selected for posthumous baptism as an honor of their accomplishments, so Mormons would disagree.
And that's my point. It's the Mormon worldview that it is an honor being bestowed, but certainly not a Jewish (or other than Mormon point of view).
In the same way, it's your point of view that the new museum is an "honor" being bestowed upon Barnes, but from what I've ascertained, he wouldn't agree.
This Mormon talk is creeping me out. More importantly, what would the art world be without a few cantankerous, bitter, crazy collectors? Is there another kind? Isabelle Gardener?
This is ultimately about power, control and lots of money to be made in the gift shop. Untapped gold - the fracking of the Barnes.
After seeing,"The Art of the Steal" I think it is ludicrous to use the name "Barnes" - How about just calling it
"The Museum Enterprise for Eminent Domain"
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home