‘By what right should a unique art institution be sacrificed for a few tourist dollars? As Sandy said above, "once it moves, it will cease to be the Barnes and instead become just another collection of paintings and decorative metal objects."’ — WashingtonWestDad

This is a very dire forecast. But what evidence exists to support it? To my understanding, the school program of the Barnes foundation will continue intact. The interior layout of the galleries in Lower Merion and Albert Barnes’s arrangement of paintings and objects will be duplicated when they move to the Parkway. The major differences in the future will be that the institution will no longer be in a suburban setting, some of the adjacent facilities (a cafe, bookstore, etc.) will be expanded, and more people will be allowed to view the collection. It doesn't appear to me that those facts are sufficient to support the judgment that the Barnes is being “sacrificed for tourist dollars.”

There is nothing intrinsic to the paintings of Renoir or Matisse that requires them to be exhibited in an old house in suburbia. Advocates of the collection remaining in Merion have stated that the garden on the present property is integral to the Barnes experience — but certainly the paintings and furniture stand on their own merits without the necessity of being in proximity to that particular garden.

It is my belief that great art should be available to the entire public. And this is particularly true in the case of institutions that receive non-profit tax benefits from the state — as the Inquirer successfully pointed out in the courts when it sued some years ago to open the collections to wider public access. In the present case, however, the courts allowed the move to ensure the economic survival of the Barnes itself. The alternative, according to the trustees, might have included selling off items from the collection. The fact that more people will get to view the collections is a welcome biproduct of this decision.

It is immaterial that the Pew family or the “racist upper crust" of Philadelphia perhaps favor the move as a way to generate profits. The more enticing aspect is that longer public hours and a more centralized location will make viewing the collection more democratized, more accessible to working-class Philadelphians, tourists, and school kids alike. And it was precisely this perspective that the neighbors on Latches Lane vehemently opposed for so many years.

Nanyika

What rational person could possibly refute what Nanyika has so eloquently stated below with out betraying their own selfish agenda. Bravo! Power to the people. Case Closed! (and welcome to the Barnes Collection in Philadelphia. Come often and enjoy.)

__________________
"Some people use change to further their careers and some people use their careers to further change." I voted for change once.....we ended up with Jimmy Carter.

A petition to stop the move made the local news and the NY Times. KYW:

Montgomery County is slowly* fixing the issues the Barnes Foundation claimed to have. Seriously, this political foot-dragging is going to cost the Barnes coming to the Parkway.

* but faster than Philly

It was the idiotic NIMBY neighbors that caused the Barnes Foundation to move the f_cking museum in the first place.

Nothing is going to change that.

While it is a shame that the collection was placed there with specific instructions for it not to ever be moved, the local neighbors didn't give a crap because when they moved there (the museum was there first), they were tired of lost drivers and traffic around the site--hence the revenue-generating restrictions placed on the Barnes which facilitated their exodus.

I say this is too little too late.

The residents of Lower Merion Township should be punished for their NIMBY attitude and should be taught an important civics lesson:

__________________
Buh-bye.

I have to agree with just about all of that.

First off, I want to see the museum move to the city (for obvious reasons).

Next, I think the elitist suburbanites that tried to strangle all reasonable access to it don't deserve it.

Finally, I can't think of too many cases where the judge gives a "do over."

I think it's a done deal (as long as philly doesn't screw it up the same way Lower Merion did -- our west philly queen of council is screwing it up pretty badly).

East Chestnut - I agree that the Barnes functions much better as an Isabella Stewart Gardner type museum than it would on the Parkway. The context is what makes it special. A world-class art collection can be found in any world-class city, but the unusual layout, limited attendance, and out-of-the-way location make the Barnes a treasured destination.

Back in the mid-90's, I was knocking on doors and interviewing the Latches Lane neighbors. I agree that they made the Barnes in Lower Merion impossible with their unreasonable demands. It is a shame.

agreed. they may have repealed the visitor limits as a last-ditch attempt to keep the Barnes, but once they get a load of buses idling in their neighborhoods, they'll be NIMBYing it all over again. no point in goint through all that again when there are so many interests pulling it towards Phlly.

Some years ago, I made arrangements well in advance to take some visitors to the Barnes Museum -- and of course I went with them.

I suppose that by admitting this I'm betraying my total lack of aesthetic judgment, but I found the entire place weirdly repellant and could hardly wait to get out of there. If I ever have to go again (*shudder*), I'll let my guests go inside and spend my time in the arboretum.

__________________
LBphilly
lb_philly@yahoo.com
"Free speech is enhanced by civility."--Tim O'Reilly

Phillyblog's best tool to enhance civility
Look far left on the blue bar, right over the Google search bar:
User CP > Miscellaneous > Buddy/Ignore Lists

I have a degree in Fine Arts and Art Education, and I still remember the time when one of my college Art History professors tried to get our class into the Barnes. It was a summer course, and the visiting hours and group limitations were so strict that the only way my professor could get a class of 15 students into the museum was to sign us up for a tour meant for elementary school children.

So we showed up, and our docent took us from painting to painting, asking us if we thought the color blue used by Matisse was "pretty." My professor kept trying to interject something a little more relevant to our syllabus, but the docent cut him off each time and moved us to the next room. They shuffled us through the entire place in about an hour. When we asked to stay a little longer to discuss what we'd seen, they told us our scheduled time was up and kicked us out.

The experience was pretty disappointing, considering that the Barnes' mission is "to promote the advancement of education and the appreciation of the fine arts." If they can't accommodate a small class of college art majors...

I'm in favor of the move, but if that doesn't happen I'm at least happy to know that the conflict is helping to reverse some of those ridiculous visitor restrictions.

lhalldena: When did the incident you describe take place? Before or after the death of Violette de Mazia?

It was her passing that set in motion the chain of events that has led us to this point.

Nanyika: Before addressing the substance of your post, I do need to correct one small detail: the artworks are displayed not in "an old house" but in a gallery built for the purpose and designed by Paul Phillippe Cret, one of the leading architects in Philadelphia practicing in the Beaux-Arts tradition in the first decades of this century. That said, you do make some very relevant points about why the Barnes is moving -- and while they do not change my opinion about the difference between a Barnes on the Parkway and the institution in Lower Merion, they do allay my fears a bit.

If, as you say, the new Barnes would be designed to display the works in the manner they are displayed at the present gallery, then it would be possible to continue -- and expose to a wider audience -- the educational program based on Barnes' admittedly unorthodox theory of what makes great art great. The operative phrase in all this is, as you noted above, "expose to a wider audience." In that regard, the actions being taken by the Friends of the Barnes and the Montgomery County Commissioners are in a sense too little, too late. I would advise my white readers to pay close attention to what follows, as it could prove instructive the next time they encounter someone black finding racism in a place where they see none. Facts are facts, but it's how we interpret them that makes the difference, and the way this drama has played out makes Richard Glanton's interpretation all too plausible. Here goes:

Upon the passing of Violette de Mazia, the last surviving link to Dr. Barnes himself broke, and the clause in Barnes' will transferring control of the Foundation to Lincoln University became effective.

The Lincoln-appointed board of trustees, headed by Mr. Glanton, were not unmindful of the legacy they were now entrusted to protect. But they also saw a 60-year-old gallery in desperate need of repairs and upgrades to its internal systems so the works in it could be better protected. And that couldn't be financed out of the endowment, for a good bit of its value had vanished along with the railroads whose stock it held. (Barnes also stipulated that the foundation's endowment could only be invested in railroad stocks -- I'm not sure about this, but I think he may even have specifically restricted it to the Pennsylvania Railroad, which was the nation's largest transportation company at the time of his death.)

That meant that the Barnes would have to raise lots of money in pretty short order. The trustees had three main options: They could tap the fabulous wealth of the Main Line, but -- as we've since seen -- the people who controlled that wealth were reluctant to hand it over to a bunch of [expletive deleted]. They could increase the number of visitors to the gallery -- which would not be inconsistent with Barnes' expressed wishes that his works be accessible to working Philadelphians. Or they could send the works on a worldwide tour and bank the proceeds.

Now, I do not know whether they aggressively pursued Option One; my above interpretation is based purely on hindsight as revealed by the actions of the foundations that came to the Barnes' rescue once the trustees had exhausted just about all other possibilities. They did pursue the other two options. On Option Three, they got what they needed: A blockbuster tour that generated enough money to perform the building renovations and system upgrades while the works were not on display there. On Option Two, they were fought tooth and nail by the very neighbors who are now pressuring the county to allow the very things the Barnes trustees asked them to permit way back when.

Those neighbors had their change of heart only after control of the Barnes board had passed from Lincoln's hands as a condition of receiving a huge sum of cash from the Annenberg and Lenfest Foundations to replenish the endowment and finance a move to a place where the Barnes wouldn't have to worry about visitor caps.

And they called Richard Glanton paranoid?

__________________
Sandy Smith, Exile on Market Street, Philadelphia
"Perpetual optimism is a force multiplier." --Gen. Colin Powell

We've had eight years of "decisive," "experienced" "leadership." Why not try intelligence this time around?