Thank you, logandog. Trust me, I feel exactly the same toward you.

This set contains some pictures of the Barnes collection:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mksfca/...40960481/show/

Article from today's Inquirer regarding increases to ticket prices, additional free hours on Sundays, and issues arising when the "riff raff" is allowed in...

http://www.philly.com/philly/enterta...et_prices.html

A few more news releases, that some will want to disagree with.

"September 27, 2012, Philadelphia—The Barnes Foundation’s new building will be the first major art and education institution in the country to achieve the highest level of environmental certification from the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC)."

"Some critics of the new Barnes Foundation will never be mollified—as ARCHITECT's Eric Wills explained in a feature on the design decisions that led from the historic mansion in Merion, Penn., to a new building nearly eight times its size. However history judges the decision to uproot the original Barnes Foundation—a building that critic Jed Perl just recently eulogized as "that grand old curmudgeonly lion of a museum" in The New Republic—it will be forced to admit that the move came at no harm to the environment."

"Last year the Barnes moved to a spectacular new home designed by Tod Williams Billie Tsien Architects in downtown Philadelphia. The building has just received the 2013 AIA Institute Honor Award for Architecture. The Foundation was conceived by Dr. Barnes as a wholly integrated environment in which the objects on display are presented in highly coordinated settings, which he called “ensembles” that create a visual dialogue among works. Pentagramʼs Abbott Miller has worked with the Foundation and the architects to capture the distinctive sensibility of the Barnes Foundation in its new identity, as well as in environmental graphics, publications and the museum’s website."

"Tod Williams Billie Tsien Architects were honored by the American Institute of Architects (AIA) with one of its Institute Honor Awards, "the profession's highest recognition of works that exemplify excellence in architecture, interior architecture and urban design." The Barnes was chosen as one of 28 winners from more than 700 submissions. The overall assessment of the building cited the "light-filled, contemplative space" that "honors the Merion facility" by replicating "the scale, proportion, and configuration of the original Merion spaces."

The move has been made after decades of debating and court cases. We can all continue to argue whether the collection should have been moved but the deed is done and the result is, IMO, a not-to-be-missed attraction in Philadelphia.

I do admit to being a little confused now. The first time I visited the Barnes, I was living in West Philadelphia and brought my mom who was living on the Main Line. We visited the old location. I was poor but she was not. The second time I visited the Barnes, I brought my two college-aged kids. I am no longer poor and am able to travel from Virginia to Philadelphia. I just don't know, now, which visit was more "legitimate" or which "value system" each fits into. BTW it wasn't after cheesesteaks, it was between breakfast at the Fountain and dinner at Supper. I guess that now makes me one of the elite snobs Dr. Barnes would have denied acess to his collection.

I did not get the audio tour under the assumption that it was the same as in the original location. Has it changed?

I still don't like the envelope building, and of course, the new size is neither here nor there when it comes to the exhibit of the original collection; and, purely as a layman, I think that a better envelope could have been designed. It's true, the move is done with. But I will not be surprised if the collection will eventually be modified because some things are "not worth keeping" or "do not fit" with the main thrust of the collection.

"We're seeing many more people not familiar . . . with what is proper behavior," said Derek Gillman, the Barnes' president and chief executive. He added that the gallery wanted those additional visitors, but with new gallerygoers "we're seeing more transgressions of people touching things and getting too close" to the art, he said."

Great.

Gillman's comment certainly reads as condescending (or at least out of touch with humanity!)

Just by its title, "The Art of the Steal," one can figure out its direction. Can someone please say where the collection would have gone had the foundation gone bankrupt? Would it not have been sold, in pieces, to creditors?

As someone said, things change. There probably weren't zoning restrictions in Barnes' day, eh? I'll be glad to visit it again to compare.

There are quite a few wealthy people who, by their love of the works or just collecting them, have made art available to those of us who also love to see it. On the East Coast of the U.S., the names Frick, the Cones, the Walters, Phillips, Post, Guggenheim come to mind and of course there are others. How did they manage to avoid what happened to the Barnes Collection?

<i>How did they manage to avoid what happened to the Barnes Collection?</i>

For one thing, the ones I recognize are located in urban areas. For another, the claim in the documentary is that payback played a big role in the move. Otherwise the private monies could have gone to the maintenance of the collection in its original location.

But TDudette assumes an honest devotion to the collection, whereas the present solution was imposed by the courts. To my knowledge, the original suggestion to move the collection did not specify a replica of the art installation. That's why I would not be surprised if it will not remain as is in the long run.

I was recently at The Frick in NYC. Interestingly it was not without controversy. Back a number of years ago, they build a rather large addition and enclosed the previously open atrium area. They felt it was necessary for administration, for greater accessability, etc. I wonder if Mr. Frick rolled over in his grave as these changes (not part of his plan) were made?
Few museums exist without making extensive changes over time -- all just part of the natural course of things.

It's interesting that the new Barnes is "nearly 8 times the size" of the old one, while the total parts showing the collection itself is apparently pretty much the same size. Clearly the new Barnes does a LOT more than simply exhibit the collection. Of course, some would say bigger is not always better, but clearly the Collection's EDUCATION facilities (the main objective of Barnes) is better able to do what it is trying to do in the very confined space of the old facility. And let's face it -- these days administration is a lot larger for an organization like this than it would have been some 50 or more years ago (both in size requirements and in scope of the programs).

<i>Clearly the new Barnes does a LOT more than simply exhibit the collection</i>

One would hope that its conservation section has been expanded. The 8 times large probably includes the hangar (bigger than the original building from what I can tell) one walks through to get to the replicated building. Does it include the fairly useless outside security pavilion? I say useless because it appears to be a guard room but the grounds are not enclosed so that one need not go through it to get to the building.

BTW, I think that the underground section is an improvement, as mentioned before.

<i>Few museums exist without making extensive changes over time -- all just part of the natural course of things.
</i>

There's the justification for not keeping the collection intact--and that is my main argument against the move.

There's a world of difference between changing an existing museum and changing it in a way that the original owner wanted it to be anyhow, like the Frick, from that of moving an entire collection, lock, stock, and barrel from its original setting and totally contrary to the original owner's will.

On the Frick:
<i>“This has basically been an underutilized, dead space,” Ms. Poulet said of the portico. <b>The notion of a home for sculptures echoes something Frick himself had pondered.</b> “He moved into the house in 1914 and already by 1915 he asked for drawings of a sculpture gallery where the oval room is now,” she added. “Then came the war, and he thought it would be inappropriate to go forward, and he died in 1919. Although this is not in the same place, we see it as a fulfillment of his vision.”</i> [bolding mine]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/11/ar...ogel.html?_r=0

Back on the Barnes, I'm with Michael in thinking that if one part of the will can be so invalidated, then other parts, like keeping the collection and its display the way Barnes wanted it, can also be invalidated.

I have another concern, but it'll have to wait until I visit the "new" Barnes. This concern is: doesn't natural light adversely affect paintings? So, if the "new" Barnes let's in so much light so that the paintings can be seen "better", what is really happening to the paintings?

<i>All light causes irreversible damage to artworks....

Natural light is an extremely intense source of energy and contains ultra-violet (UV) radiation. Most artworks are composed of organic materials making them especially vulnerable to UV wavelengths which cause embrittlement and discolouration.</i>

http://www.aucklandartgallery.com/ab...r-works-of-art

Of course, by the time the paintings in this collection begins to fade perceptibly, those who have gained -particularly monetarily - will have long gone and it'll be up to future generations to moan the damage and try to preserve the paintings.

No, easytraveler, the light is filtered and controlled in a way that's never been done before -- supposedly much better for the paintings than in the old place including fully filtering UV. Your quotes would apply more to the damage which was being done at the old place rather than the protection they now have in the new facility. Totally! Meanwhile the new facility provides for constant conservation with increased facilities to carry that out -- no room for that before.

And you seem to keep missing the point that every single wall is arranged EXACTLY the way Barnes originally did it. Which is more important for the art -- what's outside the building (where the building is located) or how the actual paintings are displayed?

One thing that is missing here is that no one has mentioned the artists. I wonder how many of them would have preferred the limited viewing by a select audience in the old place and how many would appreciate the increased audience. If we're going to talk about original intent, shouldn't they count for something?

<i>shouldn't they count for something?</i>

According to Wikipedia, Matisse was not happy over the fact that his mural would not be seen by the public. However, it must not have bothered him too much because he is the one who recommended that a third panel of a triptych of his be added to the collection and told Barnes where to hand the pictures, and in what order.

Once a painting has been sold, it is no longer the property of the artist.

to hand = to hang

<i>what's outside the building (where the building is located) or how the actual paintings are displayed? </i>

If Barnes wife developed the garden in view of the collection, the outside also counts. And for me, what Barnes had added to the exterior of the original building--the African granary door, the Art Deco decorations--also have importance.

<i>Matisse, in turn, called Barnes’ school the only “sane place” to see art in America. “The Barnes Foundation,” Matisse said in an interview, “will doubtless manage to destroy the artificial and disreputable presentation of the other collections, where the pictures are hard to see—displayed hypocritically in the mysterious light of a temple or cathedral.”</i>

http://www.philanthropyroundtable.or..._albert_barnes

Well, now his collection will be seen "displayed hypocritically in the mysterious light of a temple or cathedral".

Neopatrick: glad you said "supposedly" the light in the "new" Barnes is better than in the old Barnes. :)

As for artists having a say on who can view their paintings or not. That doesn't apply. Look at all the paintings that are bought up and displayed in private homes and are never seen by the public, sometimes they're in climate-controlled vaults where only a few are privileged to see them. The Barnes was really open compared to these.

Michael, I agree what's outside IS important, but my point was simply which is MORE important -- specifically referring to the LOCATION of the building when I said OUTSIDE -- or the display of the collection itself. I'll still maintain that the arrangement and display of the collection is MORE important to the appreciation of Barnes' idea that the surrounding neighborhood.

But you are right that in the new facility, similar importance was placed on the outside facilities as in the original location.
>>>>>>>>

Easytraveler, I'm laughing hysterically at that gobbeldegook by someone obviously upset about the entire Barnes transistion. What is he even saying? It would seem he's referring to the "LIGHT COURT" which is described by the architects as a "cathedral like hall" -- but oddly it is only a major reception hall and isn't even used to display art -- so what the hell is this guy talking about? And what on earth is that reference about Matisse. All the Matisses are displayed in the exact same arrangement as the original (how is that hypocritical?), and there is nothing particularly "mysterious" about modern lighting which is being raved about for better viewing. Someone was really searching to find negative where none really existed.

Here's a rather lengthy explanation of the light -- interesting that people even thought paintings had been cleaned because now they can see them in all their glory, not like at Merion where they were clouded by all the pulled draperies and screens in an attempt to protect them from damaging light --a problem that no longer exists with the special glass and special lighting:

"The real secret to the balancing act is in the lighting. In the old Barnes, masterpieces languished in dark corners and on dimly lit walls. Barnes believed in side lighting, and much of the Merion house was glazed with opaque panes, to screen out damaging rays. Most windows were draped with curtains. In contrast, low-transmission glass in the new galleries not only permits unobstructed views of the gardens, but, combined with the latest technology, produces a remarkable retinal intensity and presence of colour.

In the most radical departure, boxy clerestory windows were installed to provide an abundance of light, with a clarity and texture never seen in Merion. They incorporate a complex array of louvres, blinds and lamps. The lighting technician Paul Marantz has placed computer-operated sensors on the roof, which detect every change in the weather and adjust the illumination accordingly. The light boxes subliminally alter the viewing experience. They do not intrude on what you see, but their looming presence renders contemporaneous what might have turned out to be a mausoleum-like atmosphere. "

And once again, easytraveler, you have misquoted me, by carefully selecting only part of what I said. Do you honestly not see the difference between your quoting me as saying that "the light in the 'new' Barnes is better than in the old Barnes" and what I really said -- which was that it is "much better FOR THE PAINTINGS" in a paragraph referring to light damage. Big difference -- which is perhaps too complicated for you to understand?

And the reason I used the word "supposedly"? Because I am not a scientist (perhaps you are, since you seem to be such an expert at questioning what the true lighting experts say -- or rather ignoring them completely). Use your smiley face to say I don't know what I'm talking about or to show you think I said something I didn't mean to say. Such cute little pictures don't make you a better "scientist" than the ones heaping the lighting awards on the new Barnes".

Meanwhile, here is an interesting summary on the whole controversy of the "move" as written by Andras Szanto, one of the leading experts and critics of art and art facilities in the world:

"The reputation of the new Barnes will inevitably be coloured by the acrimony surrounding its recent past. No cultural institution is problem-free. Some will never forgive the exodus from Merion, and may therefore never appreciate the pleasures of the new site. Yet for most, attention will gradually shift back to what matters—the magnificent collection. Few people now lose sleep over the Courtauld Institute’s move, in 1989, from Portman Square to Somerset House in London. The downtown Barnes, in any case, will only manifest its true potential once it is in daily use, filled with visitors and tweaked here and there, as new spaces invariably are.

The new Barnes cannot revive the old. That ship has sailed. Meanwhile, Philadelphia can take ownership of a major institution with a $14m budget, a budding $50m endowment and a vastly expanded scope of functions, not to mention public access befitting its popularity. And by escaping the traps of both banality and kitsch, the new Barnes will serve as a reminder that it is possible to pay tribute to the past without surrendering to it."

But of course there are those who will always prefer to "wallow in the past" by surrendering to it. It's so much easier to say "it ain't what it used to be" rather than notice the many improved advances that modern technology allows (unless of course, you shun all advances of modern technology).

<i>It's so much easier to say "it ain't what it used to be" rather than notice the many improved advances that modern technology allows (unless of course, you shun all advances of modern technology).</i>

The assumption is that the old location could not have been upgraded.

But the basic issue is one of trust in the individuals who control the collection. Here's another museum controversy:

http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/a...or-4432897.php

and another one, perhaps closer to the issue of ultimate control:

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/articl...sm-4372039.php