We should have at GTG at the Barnes!

"We should have at GTG at the Barnes!"


Count me in!

Interesting links, Michael. At the risk of oversimplifying, the sale of that New Guinea art is kind of typical. Someone donates something to a non profit but then wants to control how they use it, even if the donation didn't fit into their long range plans or their plans change over the years. It reminds me of the woman we bought a house from years ago. She was an "artist" and her paintings made me gasp -- they reminded me of those paint on velvet things they used to sell in front of gas stations. So I was very surprised when her husband told me that one of her paintings is hanging in the White House! "Really?" I said. "Yes, indeed, she sent one to Lyndon Johnson as an inauguration gift." Oh, that explains it then, I'm sure the Johnsons immediately removed some other great work of art and perhaps hung her velvet masterpiece in the Oval Office!

and YES, count us in on the GTG as well.

NeoPatrick,

You may want to read the three letters to the editor of the NY Times concerning MOMA's decision to tear down a prize winning building because it does not fit its exhibit space. If MOMA had less money, it might have decided to adapt the existing building. Here there is no issue of a will or restrictions on a donation, but it reflects the same type of moneyed hubris that I simply do not trust when it comes to maintaining the Barnes collection as is.

I hope that you are wrong, Michael but we all know that money and ego can make people do horrible things.

TDudette, are you referring to Barnes himself with that statement or someone else?

are you referring to Barnes himself with that statement or someone else?

In this instance, it's the present and future that counts.

Neopatrick: Getting somewhat excited and off-track, aren't you?

I'm laughing hysterically at that gobbeldegook by someone obviously upset about the entire Barnes transistion. What is he even saying?

It was Matisse who said what you are "laughing hysterically at". The quote reputedly was in John Russell's biography of Matisse. The quote had nothing to do with the "transistion [sic]" since Henri Matisse passed away in 1954 and the transition didn't take place until the 21st century.

Someone was really searching to find negative where none really existed.

I'm not searching for any negative. The facts themselves are negative enough. Personally, I don't like to see a will tossed aside. If one will can be casually tossed aside, then so can another; so can all wills. Then what's the point of even making a will?

Meanwhile, Philadelphia can take ownership of a major institution...

I don't care how much of a "leading expert and critic of art and art facilities in the world" Andras Szanto is. A will is a legal document; this is a legal matter. It was NEVER Barnes INTENT that his collection should leave Merion and that Lincoln College should lose control of his collection. That statement shows such blatant disregard for what Barnes wanted. It was never his intent that Philadelphia should take ownership of his collection.

You are treating Barnes' will exactly the way the takeover people want: it's nothing, just chuck it aside. Suits their purposes just fine.

Here's a rather lengthy explanation of the light... You link to no source. Who said that? The folks running the "new" Barnes? Some "lighting expert" hired to do the lighting in the "new" Barnes? Who's your source for this description of how perfect the lighting now is in the "new" Barnes as contrasted to the "old" Barnes which is described as somewhere much resembling where Miss Havisham dwelt.

IMHO, you're getting really wound up over supposedly "misquotings" and "lack of understanding" and just because I didn't add in the phrase "for the paintings". I thought up to this point we were discussing the effect of natural light ON THE PAINTINGS - no? IMHO, it would work so much better for your arguments if you could find a few sources that show this new kind of lighting has worked well in other museums, rather than to point out that the illumination can be changed according to the weather. Well, they have mood lighting capabilities in the more expensive homes too, but that's no proof that this new mood lighting is good for the paintings.

easytraveler, I was unclear about that Matisse quote since he died in 1954 and it SEEMED you were using the quote about ruining the collections and the "cathedral" issue as having something to do with the transition. I realized the first quote about his Clearly now you weren't, but what WAS the point? Matisse LOVED the original Barnes and loved the layout Barnes used for displaying the art. That same arrangement is being used faithfully today. So what did his references to mysterious light and ruining other collections have anything to do with the entire subject of the moving of the Barnes (I DO believe that was our topic here, right?) And more importantly what was YOUR point in using that quote -- what was it supposed to tell us about the transition? You followed his quote by saying "Well, now his collection will be seen "displayed hypocritically in the mysterious light of a temple or cathedral"." That makes no sense at all, since the display is an exact copy of the original arrangement Matisse so loved -- in spaces the same size and arrangement as the original, only with improved lighting so they could be seen better. Trying to make that old quote where he was praising the Barnes arrangement over other museums to mean the new collection is somehow different from that is just plain NONSENSE.

Sure, it's bad when a will outlives its effectiveness as language, financial standards, and many other issues develop over time. Did you actually read that very long link you gave? I mean the parts where it carefully even explained many of the specifics in the will which simply couldn't be met -- including restrictions on the amount of the endowment, which as time and values changed no longer even made sense for the value of the collection. Barnes even required ALL tickets to be issued only after being requested in writing. I wonder if those above who visited the old facility requested their tickets in writing? Modern times prove some things outgrow their stated rules. Clearly Barnes didn't allow for such things as the internet! Would it make sense in 2013 to require mailed requests for tickets. I say "no", but surely those who want the wishes of the deceased to be followed literally would say, "yes, absolutely". How silly, in my book.

No, I didn't provide scientific links that prove the award winning lighting IS better for the pictures. I assumed that most intelligent people with even a minimal knowledge of modern lighting are well aware that there are lights now that are non damaging and UV protective glass is almost a standard, and I even quoted the architectural awards which stated explained the lighting in more detail. You want scientific proof? Get a grip. Why would the museum be awarded for their innovative lighting advances if they didn't do it? In fact, why wouldn't they use UV protective glass and less damaging lighting when it is being used almost as a standard these days in such facilities? Why would you think they be awarded and praised for the increased protection to the paintings from damaging light if it weren't true? Why would the idea that in the old museum drapes and screens had to be kept drawn to protect the paintings from the natural light and in the new museum that is not the case even be brought up if it weren't true? It's fine that you have no knowledge of these things, but please don't demand proof of such a basic concept that UV protective glass exists and works. Of course it does!

"SUPPOSED misquotings"? -- well, one thing is certain. You really do make me laugh.

There are two sides to this issue as I've stated over and over. Clearly you are on one side and I'm on the other. I think the transition is a wonderful thing. You clearly think it isn't -- and as far as I can tell, simply because you believe a will should be honored no matter what. Fine. I see you getting just as "excited" as I am on this subject -- and certainly just as much "off track".

By the way, I'm curious, and if you've said, I missed it. Did you visit the Barnes at Merion? Have you visited the new one?
For the record, I did not see the old one, but found the new Barnes perhaps the most wonderfully exciting art museum I have ever been in -- and I've been in a lot of them. There I said it. Maybe that's why I spend so much time on this thread.

I honestly don't care about the will and the totally unanswerable question about "could these things have been accomplished at the old location being true to the will?" All I know is, the collection is wonderful and I find the new space really wonderful as well. I'm the sort who likes that I saw the paintings far better lit than in the darkness of the old place. I'm just not a person who wallows in the past -- and I DO believe in modern technology when it makes things "better". Thank you Barnes, for giving us the opportunity to enjoy this collection (even if it does make you roll over in your grave) and thank you Philadelphia and all the powers that be for making this such a great venue.

I have more to say, but for now just bookmarking and do want to please add me a Barnes GTG!

It is about time to plan a other Philly GTG anyway. I think we had discussed April last time. Oh well, it's never too late.

I must say that Dr. Barnes and his little dog are haunting the dreams of PaleoPatrick.

I was referring to people who run the world in general, Neo. Specifically, people who curate/critique and other posturing phonies who "decide" about art in ways that have nothing to do with the art and everything to do with self-aggrandizement.

We all have agendas--some we are aware of, many hidden away. This is my opinion only but I think Dr. Barnes' didn't let go of any of his "baggage". He was going to do it his way and not let the art community, who weren't kind to him, have a say in his world. He was well ahead of his time with his collection and he did it on his own--always a problem to the establishment, eh? Look at the Impressionists vs. the Academie.

Most artists make art because they have to. It is who why are. And yet, how much money do you reckon Matisse made from his sales to Dr. Barnes? I'd be complimenting Dr. Barnes' collection also.

Wills and the Constitution of the United States? All written within the context of the times as other have said above. There are petitions to "break" Wills all the time, and how many amendments to our Constitution are there? Hopefully, the changes reinforce the original intent. If what is written is true, the Barnes Collection was going to get sold off in bankruptcy. What happened might not be ideal, but at least the public doesn't lose out. And, speaking for myself, I would have been one of the poor kids Barnes had in mind to view his collection.

"What happened might not be ideal, but at least the public doesn't lose out."
Actually, it can hardly be denied that the public not only didn't lose out, but gained significantly!

Of course, you knew I was being sarcastic with my question to you, but yes, very good points. And it is pretty hard to deny that the move (while of course involved some significant and controverial changes) had "faithfulness to the original display of the collection" at the forefront of their entire plan.

If what is written is true, the Barnes Collection was going to get sold off in bankruptcy.

had "faithfulness to the original display of the collection" at the forefront of their entire plan.

From the beginning?

History belongs to the victor.

Here are my thoughts. I did watch "the Art of the Steal" and it does bother me that the Will of Barnes was broken.

I admit my outrage subsided after I visited the Barnes in the new location. It is a beautiful building and there is a very nice, interesting and I thought fascinating audio that enchanced my visit, much more so than my two previous visits to the old location.

The old location was a PITA, IMO. You had to make reservations weeks in advance. They used to open only one side in the morning, completely close for an hour at lunch, and then re-open the other side in the afternoon. This made for a difficult visit. (For my second visit, they had done away with the 1/2 day closing but reservations were still difficult to get).

All I remember prior to the move was the neighborhood was constantly complaining about the parking and hassle of living admist a popular destination. Then, when the move was discussed, all of a sudden they changed their views and the collection should not be moved. It affected my perception of the Barnes knowing the neighbors didn't like it, and added to all the rules of the old location, did not make the museum feel at all welcoming. It was if visitors were very unwillingly tolerated.

The new location is near some really nice restaurants and along the nice Parkway. I think it does the collection, and Mr. Barnes' vision, justice.

I wonder if those who are negative-Barnes-move have been to the new location, and if that visit at all altered your views.

I started this thread recommending that the Barnes at its present location should be seen, even if only as a day trip from NYC. I still question the motives of those seeking the move, and therefore what may be state of the collection in the long run. And I still am not crazy about the modern envelope.

Michael, I tend not to be a huge fan of modern architecture, and I understand the "disconnect" between the traditional Barnes Collection and the very modern "box" that now houses it.

But on the other hand I DO understand the idea of what the architects were trying to accomplish. If they had created a huge new building attempting to mimic the original Barnes gallery exterior in style-- because it was so huge, what would the result be? -- something like an oversized palatial castle. That would be even less "effective" in my book than the rather abstract, modern box.
The end result instead -- of walking into a modern box to find the accurately copied interior rooms and collection arrangements-- does just what it attempts to do -- showing the traditional collections in their original forms transported to a new, more modern place.

There is an article about the Barnes in today's Philadelphia Inquirer. It seems there have been a lot of people touching the paintings, frames, etc. and sitting on the furniture.
They are raising the price to $22 which will include the audio tour.
The article states that in the original location they had about 62,000 visitors a year. At the new locaton it has risen to 300,000.

I wonder how the touching, etc. described in the article would compare to what goes on at other art museums, such as the Philadelphia Museum of Art, or the Met in NYC, which also attract larger crowds.

I recall the new Barnes as having those motion detector alarms that ring when you get to within a foot or so of the paintings. I know I kept setting one off in front of one paintings at the Barnes (the Bosch copy/imitator) to be able to see the details better. I assure you, I know not to touch the paintings!

NeoPatrick,

I do like modern architecture, particularly the descendants of the Bauhaus and less the more individualistic creations such as Frank Gehry's (admirable but over the top). But I can think of a better modern design than the hangar we have to cross in this instance.

Example of likes:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mksfca/...57622927438333

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mksfca/...57623174831107

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mksfca/...57624668777412