Barnes Collection
 

We just spent 10 days in NYC and went to Philadelphia for a few days. Stayed with a friend who had reserved tickets for us for the Barnes Collection. The collection is a must for anyone interested in art, although I am not crazy about the modern building that encases the reproduction of the original rooms. I would even consider visiting it on a day trip from NYC, taking a Bolt bus (reservations recommended) from 34th St. & 8th Ave. in the morning and coming back early in the evening.

If staying in Philadelphia, I recommend Scannichio's Restaurant (2500South Broad St.) for a good and relatively inexpensive meal ($161 for three appetizers, 3 main courses, three desserts, including tip); bring your own wine or beer.

I'm glad I got to see it before they ripped it from it's home.
I hope the ghost of Dr.Barnes haunts the dreams of those thieves.

logandog, you're entitled to your opinion, of course, but frankly I think the fact that now many more people can view the amazing collection thanin the old place makes it very worthwhile. And while the exterior of the building is modern, the inside is virtually an exact replica of the original, right down to the exact placement of the art on the walls according to Dr. Barnes original layout. There aren't many museums that would give that much attention to preserving the integrity of a private collection.

There's a reason the new museum has already won so many awards, and I'm fascinated by how "green" the entire project was, right down to the floors being made from old Coney Island boardwalks.

Wow! $55 per person for a meal is relatively inexpensive?

I believe that The Elgin Marbles would be best viewed en situ in Greece.
Perhaps we should uplift Stonehenge and plant it Trafalgar so more people could view it.

<i>Wow! $55 per person for a meal is relatively inexpensive?</i>

Normally we never need a doggy bag. Here we did. The portions are generous and the quality was good with the fish dish outstanding.

<i>but frankly I think the fact that now many more people can view the amazing collection than in the old place makes it very worthwhile</i>

I think that something is lost in the exchange. The replication of the African granary door (see <u>Permanent Collection</u> for a false representation of Barnes vis-àvis AFrican art) over the outside entrance and the other details no longer exist. The central room definitely does not have the same wow effect being in a hall that's accessed through an even larger hall. It's as if Annenberg finally lords it over Barnes (see <u>The Art of the Steal</u>).

But the one thing that stands out far better than in the old building is the incredible collection of Indian pottery located in the sitting area near the cloakroom.

"I believe that The Elgin Marbles would be best viewed en situ in Greece.
Perhaps we should uplift Stonehenge and plant it Trafalgar so more people could view."

Well it's pretty hard to argue with such "brilliant" reasoning as that, so I won't bother to try.

logandog, the new Barnes is receiving rave accolades from all over including some of the most prestigious art "critics" and organization in the world. But of course, their views are meaningless compared to yours.

And yes, I DO realize you have your right to shun it -- as I pointed out before. Just as I have my right to praise it. As someone who never made it to the old one (a nearly impossible feat in itself), I really appreciate the fantastic job they have done making this collection accessible to us "peasants".

I agree that it is somewhat sad that clearly documented wishes of Dr. Barnes are no longer possible. He wanted his collection to be viewed in his estate in the specific way that he wanted it presented. That said it became increasingly impractical to carry that mission forward. I was fortunate enough to see the collection at the estate and have not made it to the new location - it is on my to do list. It is great that more people will see it now - truly an amazing collection and very diverse. And it is next door to the Rodin museum so day trippers can see both if they are so inclined.

<i>I agree that it is somewhat sad that clearly documented wishes of Dr. Barnes are no longer possible.</i>

That was not that clear according to the admittedly biased documentary <u>The Art of the Steal</u>, where it was pointed out that the State's contribution to the move would have provided enough for the essential renovations of the original site.

Michael, care to talk about the neighborhood issues at the old site? You know, parking, traffic, and the very limiting issues of allowing the public there much at all.

I took the bus,two bucks from downtown and a five minute walk.

Limited parking, although we were given parking access when making a reservation. But that is true of other art collections, such as the Fondation Maeght near Nice. Not everything should be immediately accessible, and when we speak of general public access, we tend to forget that this was not the primary purpose of the Barnes Foundation. Barnes saw it as a educational venue for disadvantaged children. I wonder how much of that remains of his intent?

Interesting question, Michael. I'd be curious how many disadvantaged children saw the collection this year as opposed to previous years at the old venue. My money would be on "many more".

Neooooo... Neooo Patrick.
This is the ghost of Dr. Barnes and his little dog.
We had the foresight to collect this art and we made our wishes clear. You and your ilk have thwarted us.

Neooooo.... this is the ghost of Henri Matisse. I painted those dancers just for this place, why did you move them?

Neeeooo..this is the ghost of Renoir. Don't you think my later work was maudlin and....
Sorry, wrong dream.

<i>I'd be curious how many disadvantaged children saw the collection this year as opposed to previous years at the old venue</i>

But probably not as Barnes would have wanted it.

So a man who died over sixty years ago somehow knew the best way his collection could meet even his own goals in the future? It's not the first time a man couldn't predict how his estate should or would be managed over half a century later. Her's a surprise. Society changes.

By the way, I had never even heard of the Barnes Collection until it opened in the new location. I saw it, I returned. I'm now a member and take guests. I guess I'm typical of the "riff raff" you and the other "purists" wish could have been kept away. Sorry to have spoiled your little secret, but I'm happy.

Much like the Louisiana in Denmark, the original Barnes was more than the art on the walls (and the way it was hung). The landscape, the greenhouse, the specimens were part of the experience, both when wandering the grounds and when looking out from the galleries' windows. That cannot be replicated on the Parkway.

So, yes, I agree that access is important and has improved. But achieving that has not come without a price to the patron experience.

<i>I guess I'm typical of the "riff raff" you and the other "purists" wish could have been kept away</i>

You are making wild assumptions.

Not too wild an assumption (other than calling myself riff-raff), as we are clearly typical of the many people who are now enjoying the Barnes who never would have in the old venue. And clearly from your posts, that would have been preferable to you than making the move, adding a bigger more complete facility and greatly increasing access to the collection. Seems pretty clear to me.

And yes, I'll be the first to agree that perhaps sometimes when things expand, move, or add significantly to their programs, something DOES get lost. Sadly, that's progress.

I had mixed feeling when I read that the Barnes Collection had moved. I had visited the old site numerous times and my memory is of crowded rooms with tons of people peering over shoulders to see the paintings. I can't remember where we parked our car or that it had been difficult, but it must have created problems for the nearby residents.

Times do indeed change and while it is sad that things could no longer remain the way Dr Barnes envisioned his collection to be seen, it sounds like an effort has been made to create the original ambience. Certainly the new location, will give more people access to this wonderful art collection.

Many great estates in Europe were closed to the general public a hundred yrs ago, but events have allowed us plebians to see these wonderful homes and grounds. Barnes could not envision the future, but I believe the change in location was for the best. I look forward to visiting the collection this fall in its new location.

It sounds like we need reservations to see the collection. Is that true?

<i>I'm now a member and take guests</i>

And in keeping with Barnes' original intent, please invite some young residents of West Philly as guests from time to time.

Pretty much most young residents of West Philly (so long as they are still in school) have already been to the new venue or soon will be. The school field trip program there is huge!

Oh, but my membership donation helps pay for those programs, so in a sense you can say I AM taking some young West Philly guests.

I see reservations are recommended on the Barnes website. How important is it that we make them?

I would treat reservations as a necessity, not a recommendation.

Thank you, ML. How far in advance do I need to make them? Rather what would be the minimum time I could get away with, assuming it is mid week and not a holiday period?

The day we went there no more tickets were available for walk-ins.

Thanks, Michael. I guess we will play it safe and make reservations.

I believe you can also change your reservations if need be, but do check with the Foundation itself.

I, too, saw it at the old location and must agree that it was the totality of the experience that MLTimes mentioned which made visiting so pleasurable. I had visited twice before the removal to Philadelphia and had so wanted to visit it one more time in its original location, but just wasn't able to do so.

Late last year I had planned to visit the collection in its new location, having had many doubts as to what could be accomplished by a relocation, but again wasn't able to visit, so thank you, Michael, for bringing it up so I can put it on my calendar for this year.

I am most curious as to what happened to the Matisse work on the ceiling and walls that was so marvelous to behold in the main gallery. Was it moved to the new location? How were they able to move it? Or did it remain at the mansion?

Hi, annetti! Are you back on the east coast again?
Make your reservations as soon as you know when you'll be in the city.

My kids are reluctant museum goers but I was able to convince them to visit the new Barnes when we were in the city. They loved it. I would not have had the same success if the museum was still out in Merion.

<i>I am most curious as to what happened to the Matisse work on the ceiling and walls that was so marvelous to behold in the main gallery.</i>

The Matisse work was moved.

Wow, Michael!

However in the world did they do that?!!

I don't know the details, but it is commonly done with old frescoes for preservation purposes. This fresco in the church is only a copy, the original has been moved to the Catalan National Museum in Barcelona:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mksfca/...57623190654780

Hi Birdie, no, not on the East coast now, but planning ahead for a trip this fall when we will be in NY.

Annetti, since you have some flexibility, why not look at the calendar on the Barnes site occasionally, and reserve when choices start dwindling.

~Liz

Last year I tried to book in August for the Thanksgiving weekend and it was already too late, but, obviously, that is a very busy weekend. When we took a shot at just walking in they told us that a few tickets had been "turned in" earlier, so I do think you can give up tickets you've reserved, most likely without penalty as they know they'll resell them.

As for the new location, I wish I had seen the collection in its old digs, but am glad that more visitors can enjoy it in its current location. I have mixed feelings about honoring the original collector's wishes if those wishes significantly restrict the number of people who can view the art.

<i>I have mixed feelings about honoring the original collector's wishes if those wishes significantly restrict the number of people who can view the art.</i>

Access to the museum is still restricted to about 800 visitors per day during the week and about 1000 per day on weekends. That's the nature of the museum; the rooms are not that big.

If the original collector's wishes were not following at least to the point of reconstructing exactly as they were the rooms of the original building (there are corridor modifications), the collection would not be seen as it exists.

How many Renoirs would a fine arts museum exhibit at the same time? Or Cézannes? Or Pendergrast and Demuth? Never heard of the last two?--my point exactly. Would a fine arts museum with an overwhelming European collection include Indian pottery and rugs, African masks, 18th cent. Pennsylvania Dutch chests, Southwest votaries? All these would be de-accessed in no time. However crazy the personal vision of Barnes, it offers an eclectic collection that would not remain together had the courts not imposed the duplication of the original exhibit space.

It might also be noted that people who died over 60 years ago, had no idea what developments would be made in art preservation and presentation. It's pretty well understood that the lighting in the new facility is amazing and provides for much better viewing -- would Barnes have approved? Quite possibly if such lighting was available in his day, yes, he would have installed it. But who knows? And the new facility even has special window glass to prevent any damaging rays to the paintings -- not so in the old facility. Perhaps Barnes didn't want his collection to last terribly long, but again if so, his wishes have been denied, because the paintings will survive much longer now.

<i>It might also be noted that people who died over 60 years ago, had no idea what developments would be made in art preservation and presentation.</i>

True of any major collection in a building that was constructed before W.W.II--the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Frick Collection, the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum, the Louvre, etc. etc. Somehow these buildings were upgraded--at least I'm sure that the security of the Gardner Museum was changed.