Creating the Market for Modern Art in the United States

Christina Chaplin
Interior of the Barnes Foundation

The Barnes Foundation was, at its creation, a completely radical thing, the likes of which had never really been seen before.  For this reason, there were many powers at hand who were against the Foundation, the collection, and the collector Albert C. Barnes.  Barnes was not an artist, he was simply a pharmaceutical mogul who had made his fortune from humble beginnings.  When he got turned onto art as a collector, it is seen now that he had a precious and rare gift to see value in works being vilified elsewhere.  He collected works from brilliant minds such as Matisse, Pippin, Seurat, Picasso, Renoir, etc.  However, these men, at the time of Barnes' collecting, were not recognized as masters, had no place in the conservative world of the Philadelphia art scene, and were even rejected by such alienists who claimed that they were utterly insane. 

Barnes believed in the artistic merit of these men at a time when his views were laughed at by some and reviled publicly by others.  He persevered in his collection, and his struggles led him to a lifelong hatred of the commercialization of the art community as a bourgeois activity.  The hatred he harbored for the Philadelphia art-elite and museum institutions led him to the decision that his works would never be moved, sold, or loaned from their place in the Barnes Foundation in Lower Merion, PA.  He left evidence of these convictions as his indenture of trust.  The Barnes Foundation now, with no pieces ever sold although it will be moved and has been loaned, is estimated at between $25-$30 billion.  This is an extraordinary amount of money for a collection of only a few hundred art works done in the last century.  Many factors contribute to the value of this collection and include, but are not limited to:

Branding.

When Barnes collected his pieces, he was convinced of their importance in the continuing American tradition of art, especially painting.  He wanted to share this conviction and so he held a public exhibition in 1923 of the post-impressionist and modern paintings he had bought.  This collection, though seen by some as a continuation of traditions being set forward in the art scene of NYC's Armory show, was viewed my others as disgusting evidence of mental insanity in all of the artists on display.  "Professionals" in the fields of psychology came forward to claim that the work was proof of the degradation of the art realm, and that the artists themselves must be debased and mentally ill.  Barnes stood behind his work, taking these critics head on and defending his artists.  After this event came the impetus forBarnes to establish his Foundation in 1925.

Years later, many if not all of the artists that Barnes had collected until his death in 1951 have become precious house-hold names as the founders of modern art traditions.  They are represented by major collectors, dealers, auction houses, and museums across the world.  They have been branded and marketed by society as geniuses of their time.  This future and continuing branding lends a great deal of the current value to the Barnes Foundation.  By the scandal in the art market at the time, and the perpetuation of the names of the artists Barnes believed in, Barnes was able to jump start the international careers of artists he supported, causing the eventual branding of their names and estates.

Association.

When Barnes was collecting, his artists were not recognized for their talent and he was not recognized widely for his eye.  As history progressed, however, both of these items came to be acknowledged by the greater artistic community.  Barnes' fame as a distinguished collector with an eye for talent lead many of his artists on to fantastic careers.  But more than their individual talent, the talent of each lends value to the other art works also held in the collection by association.  Therefore, each masterpiece gains merit based on the fact that it was ranked highly enough to find itself in an unparalleled collection of other masterpieces.  Paintings outside of the Barnes Foundation context might not be so highly valued if it were not for the fact that for almost a hundred years they have been in the company and under the same rigorous care as their peers of invaluable worth.  Each great work supports and lends cultural value to the others with which it is seen by the connections that an audience can then find between them.

Exclusivity.

With the public's inability to buy, duplicate, or sometimes even to see the Barnes Foundation's works, value and intrigue grew.  The market eventually became flooded with works by these great men represented by Barnes, but the inability of a museum or collector to buy the specific works was scarcity to an extreme.  The works held have become immune to the ebbs and flows of the market in that they cannot be traded repeatedly (which many fear can degrade the value of a work), and therefore are seen as superior to their brothers in auction.  Also, with Barnes' eye for good work, it is claimed that the paintings he holds are some of the very best by these men.  Since they can only be measured by the success of other paintings being sold by the same artists (economically speaking), and since buyers have no access to the greatest works and are thus willing to spend greater and greater amounts on the second best, the works held by the foundation are ever increasing in estimated value.  The speculative price of the unobtainable then becomes nearly invaluable.  Perhaps Barnes was unaware of how his actions to protect the work from the commercial world would effect the value.  Yet it seems, that his steps to insure the purity of the work gave them their greatest symbolic and cultural value as separate from the art market and untouchable in a way.  The art Barnes collected holds an important place in history and so it is much, much more than just good art.  It is part of the evolution of America.  It is nostalgia and innovation at its best.

The only good that I can see coming out of this move to Philadelphia is the continuity of Barnes' original education agenda through classes at the Barnes Merion location, and of course new wings in the new location to hold exhibitions of contemporary work.  One problem of the Foundation Trustees' attempts to preserve the Foundation exactly as it was, is that Barnes had a greater intent to expand the scope of his work's impact on society as tool of education and acceptance of social progression.  Barnes was a unique supporter of African and African-American art work at a difficult time, and without continued acquisitions (impossible after his death for him to make) contemporary work was not necessarily being supported by the Foundation as would potentially have been his wish.  What do you guys think of this?  Do you think that by not continuing to buy modern art ahead of the curve, and not adding to the collection and supporting talented contemporary works that the Foundation was overlooking a part of the Barnes Foundation Legacy?

http://www.barnesfoundation.org/about/faq

Dalanda Jalloh 

Dr. Albert C. Barnes was an American philanthropist who made his fortune after finding a treatment for venereal disease during his medical and chemical career. The money he made from his fortune was then used to create the Barnes foundation, which had a mission to promote the advancement of education and the appreciation of the fine arts (http://www.barnesfoundation.org/about/mission). His humble beginnings and working class background led to him to create this foundation as a means of educating and exposing those individuals deserving of such an opportunity.

Barnes had progressive interests and this drew him to the rising generation of Freudians who “largely came from social class backgrounds, were less wanted by the community, and lacked the institutional authority that social scientists, Durkheim and Boas, had. He shot down the ideas of Durkheim, Boas, and Watsworth, disclaiming them as nonsense and called the men ignorant to new ideas with only the ability to regurgitate old ideas about previous ideologies they likely new nothing about. Durkheim and Boas were against modernism unlike Barnes who was ahead of his time, artistically, culturally, intellectually, and politically according to the documentary The Art of the Steal. He had an eye for visionary art and was able to foresee that artists like Renoir, Matisse, Cezanne, and Picasso would achieve great renown. Because of his knack for art, his collection would later be considered the ‘treasure trove’ of modern art, and viewed as one of the most beautiful collections that no other person or museum could ever match. During his time of collection, Barnes was competing against four other museums in the Philadelphia area for the art that would don the walls of the Barnes Foundation in Lower Merrion, Pennsylvania. He was known to deny the public access to his foundation all but two days a week. It was even said he would deny those haughty elites entrance to his foundation while permitting access to those of humble backgrounds. Were it not for his visionary art taste, and exclusivity, the pieces within his foundation would not have been worth so much. This constant demand for entrance into this exclusive foundation was one factor that added significant value to his works of art. Generally, this demand is what makes art valuable. Gallery owners and patrons who had this immense desire for Barnes’ art are partly responsible for its magnificent value. That time period of art collection frenzy and amassing riches contributed to the value of art as well. The context plays a significant role in art valuation since it describes the sentiments, and demand for art by those involved in the art market during that time period. Members of the elite wanted art, and subsequently those with the great art were deemed as valuable along with their art pieces.

Barnes’ collection was unique. It was unlike any museum that was marked by white walls and large rooms for public viewing. His art reflected the fact that he was not interested in a mass experience, but rather the quality of art. Rooms were arranged by aesthetic value rather than artist and the setting was one of intimacy. It was truly an educational setting and Barnes’ means of giving back to a deserving portion of this Pennsylvania community. His collection truly revealed his personal taste and socially conscious agenda and spoke to viewers. It sent a message that we are all human beings, and in that we are the same. The basic fundamental of life for all people is the same and he showed this through art. Barnes wanted people to know that art is not something separate from life but that in fact, art is life. He reiterated that art was not marked by insanity and even suggested that artists could perceive at a higher level than others. In his opinion, if others tried to see things the way artists did, they would perceive better, subsequently becoming better problem solvers, and subsequently creating a better democracy.

His progressive thinking led him to a vast collection. Barnes displays his relationship with progressive social issues and African-American concerns in life through his display of the African-American art. He opposed art being viewed simply for subject matter. Art collections were “aesthetic equations” in the Barnes collection, something I understand to mean that they were complex to understand and only comprehensible to those who put in the diligence and effort to truly understand them. Many of these collections and ensembles were designed for intense, intimate analysis with small groups of students so that the message could be taught, discussed, and analyzed. Methodology, psychology, and education, are three key factors that played a large role in the Barnes foundation method of teaching as well as aesthetics. In terms of methodology, a concept called “transferred values” attempts to explain the way a particular wall in the Barnes foundation would function as an aesthetic unit. Barnes wanted his art to accentuate certain features of a particular work in which these elements were also present. Whether it was color, line, space, or something else, he wanted to reveal the ‘ornamental (immediate appeal) and structural (formal organization) aspects of art’ to the students. The psychology behind the art seems to be the means by which Barnes tried to show the artist mind through art forms. Many viewed artists as insane people, while Barnes thought the complete opposite, claiming them to be one of the most perceptive thinkers in a community. He wanted to steer people away from the close-minded and old age thinking of artists by social scientists like Durkheim, Watsworth, and Boas and show them his progressive way of thinking. Encompassing all of this (both methodology and psychology) was the education aspect Barnes aimed to provide at the foundation. With the inclusion of African-American art, art that was not well understood by other artists, curators, or museums, and his other thought provoking pieces, Barnes aimed to educate. He aimed to show that African-Americans were people and that the average person or even a person deemed below average, could be entitled to something of value. Through it all, Barnes wanted to leave something in his name that would help future generations, rather than erect a simply monument to himself. In doing so, his desires were fulfilled while alive, yet seemingly dishonored or modified in death.

Charles Saunders

Albert Barnes was an important figure in the early 19th century art market and the initiation of a collector as a central figure in the art world. Philadelphia was known as a highly conservative cultural center, with most of the artistic focus concentrated in established modes of acceptance, and little regard for progressive or modernist art. Indeed, many of the critical literature, and certainly the central conservative newspaper, painted impressionist and modern art as backward and regressive, attributed "insanity" and other barbaric connotations to much of the new artistic focus. Barnes held this widespread viewpoint in utter contempt. Blessed with an uncanny perception of value, Barnes was able to see real beauty and ingenuity in these new works of art, and rejected traditional "high society" approaches to art, as the rich purchased artistic pieces often as mere upholstery for their extravagant mansions, using art as a symbol of social status rather than exhibiting true appreciation and understanding. Instead, Barnes used his financial means to hoard great works of art before they were internationally recognized in an effort to protect them from misuse and immoral connotation at the hands of the materialistic upper classes.

What resulted was a collection that was ultimately envied by many of the largest and most prestigious institutions worldwide. His pieces would eventually be assigned astronomical value due to the international recognition of the artists, the aesthetic quality of the paintings in his possession (as he used his extraordinary sense of quality to collect the best pieces), and also the exclusivity of a collection that was largely closed off from the traditional art world. He exhibited his pieces only selectively, uses didactic methods of showcasing his collection to students and true art aficionados, or people who could understand and learn from the paintings for the genius they exhibited, and protected his collection from those who would seek to exploit the pieces for material gain. It was said that he refused exhibition to recognized art critics and willingly showcased his collection to plumbers and the common man. It wasn't until many legal battles following his death that the collection was finally opened, to some extent, to the general public, much against the wishes and will of its primary collector. 

Because many of the artists Barnes championed were eventually successful and recognized internationally, it is likely that many of these pieces would still have held considerable value in the art world regardless of the actions of Barnes, especially as these pieces are clearly some of the best representative pieces of their respective artists. However, it is also probable that the simple fact that they were kept "off the market" for so long enhanced the ultimate value of the pieces of art, as their inherent exclusivity increased the public desire for them and drove higher their subjective value. The public interest of Barnes also likely positively affected the demand for the art that he held cloistered in his exclusive Pennsylvania mansion. His patronage of the black Lincoln University showed uncharacteristic tolerance given the time period, and probably paralleled his ability to see value in early unheralded modernist works of art and enhanced his legacy as a sophisticated art collector. All in all, the value of a work of art, because of its inherent subjectivity in its market valuation, probably has a high correlation with its connotation; key value drivers include its circumstances and situational characteristics. Popular or respected art patrons or collectors can add considerable value to the art pieces they champion, as they represent the private sector and thus offer a better competitive determination of the true value of a work of art, as well as increase the premium a piece of art can command due to adding exclusivity value and restricting supply. Indeed, the Barnes collection can be considered to have a modern day worth in the billions of dollars, no doubt inflated do the the historical circumstances of the collection,

Lipei Yu

H Hunt Bradley III

Daniel Chazen

I first want to say that it would basically be impossible to put an accurate value on Barnes’ collection without an auction – something that will never happen.  So it basically comes down to speculation and estimated value of the works themselves, and probably more important, the history, intrigue and notoriety of Barnes and his foundation, especially with the moving of the collection.  Three determinants come to mind in trying to put a value on Barnes’ collection.

I think the first and most obvious factor in determining value has nothing to do with Barnes.  Instead, it is the fame of the artists and the quality of the works themselves that are included in his collection.  I imagine that appraisers could value the pieces of art based on prior sales of artwork from the same artists, but there is probably not much of a recent sale history for the works of Renoir or Picaso or the other artists in his collection.  So this measure of value is kind of limited and basically based on the assessment of expert appraisers.

The second basis for valuing his collection is the legacy and intrigue for which Barnes and his collection are known, something that could be called the “Barnes’ factor.”  While there are a number of Picaso paintings in the world, most of them are not a “Barnes” Picasso.  It’s kind of like something similar to a classic car that is being auctioned off.  If it belonged to a someone who is famous and a collector of classic cars, like Jay Leno, versus someone who is not well-known, then it is probably going to be worth more – a lot more.  And by being both famous (or infamous) for the anti-establishment things he did with his collection, and the fight over relocating the collection long after his death, there is value just because the art was owned by him and the subject of so much controversy, in part because of the Foundation’s relationship with Lincoln University.

The third factor is what I’ll call overall context.   It is based not only on the history of the Barnes Foundation, but also the value added by the collection being unparalleled, world famous, and never meant to be sold in the first place.  The context of this collection could add value far beyond anyone’s imagination as any sale for the artwork would create emotion, passion, worldwide media coverage and a sense of power that by itself could add millions to the value of any of the paintings.  I could easily see some super rich person from China or Russia spending many millions on acquiring something from this collection, not only for value of the painting itself, but more so to be able to “signal” to the world art market that he or she got it.  I think being able to buy a significant piece from this collection in terms of prestige, would be similar, if not greater, than for example buying the Empire State Building.

Gallery owners and patrons play a large role in the valuation of particular works.  But when it comes to this kind of unique collection and distinct history, I think its overall context adds more value than any one factor.   This is seen by the fact that the value and importance of the collection was so powerful that politics and economics basically trumped the wishes of the man who owned the artwork.  The collection and everything about it is a piece of American history unlike any other.

Kwame Nana-Atoo

Dr. Barnes had the eye, passion, quality and taste for art and collecting with an exuberating faith about art. When a person has all this to his and yet has the urge to make others aware of it, that makes him one of the greatest and most important figures in the history of art collecting and collectors in America.  It’s the embodiment of the aesthetic qualities of art. The Barnes foundation was built to promote the advancement of education and the appreciation of the fine arts.  The arts in has faced a lot of down grading proposal and I think that it was for this reason that Barnes wanted to promote the awareness and its important. One thing I admire about Barnes was his courage to face the people who were trying to take from him. He by no means stood down to what he had purposed his collections for. After all, it was is own art and he had to choice to do what he wanted to do it.  I believe that Barnes would have opened the gallery to the general public had there not been evil intensions from the rich and people in power who wanted nothing but to take from people and add to their riches and power. It was for this purpose that he gave the foundation to Lincoln University. It was to show to political and power hungry folks that he stood for what was right and wasn’t ready to give it to people who were going to selfishly attain what he has worked for and damn his vision. All through the movie, what hurt the most, was that he didn’t have any children to have gained control over the foundation. Nonetheless, Ms. Violette De Mazia did a great job following the exact same steps as Mr. Barnes.

 As we have read and discussed in the previous days, status of an artists name plays a very important role in the value of a work and even more if the work is a great one. I personally believe that not all Picasso, Cezanne, Renoir etc. is great, but if a number of what they have done has been mind-blowingly amazing, it is just human nature to associate all works by the artist to a good ones they have done as the same. With this I believe that if Cezanne’s “Card Players” amongst other famous work of art were not part of Dr Barnes collection, it would not hold the same value, but it might have the same significance it has today “Historically”. I say this because one thing that makes Dr. Barnes and his foundation stand out is his passion for the art as well as the desire to educate people who were willing to learn about it. Such attributes to a collectors goal makes the foundation very significant, it might not have the best works, but it had some good intentions and to most of humanity, good intentions surpasses wealth and value. In the case of Dr. Barnes, he had them both and that is what called for the attention all over. In this circumstance, it is clear that the context of Barnes collections has contributed the valuation of the art. My observation is that Barnes must have known that the best way to use the art works was to preserve them and in preserving them for people to fully connect to the authenticity of the works is to have them at their original place and not only that but also to have them in the way they have been arranged and put together, that way, it is preserved in the midst of potentially dangerous outside influences.

 I can’t say much that gallery owners and patrons of art can contribute to the valuation of artworks, I believe that it’s the viewers. When they see a works of art and have many positive reviews after the show, my thinking is that that is when the patron and gallery owners put value on the works, now this is if they are new works by new people.  I think Dr. Barnes support for the African American art, was one highlight of his character, he was someone who did right, and feared no one in implementing what he thought and knew was right. I think what he did was to get back at the people in government during a racially heated period in America. He stood for unity and putting things together that seemed right, and harmonious, this reflected in the way he group his collection- ways that people will never do, putting different famous artist together but having meaningful message. It was the same thing he tried to do, to give the African American community a voice. It is quite unfortunate that Lincoln University fell for the money, and became the minority in the foundation. In all honesty, the political chaos that happened or is happening in this issue, was a surprise to me not because I don’t know that people are selfish and will do that, but it was the knowledge that this is happening in the 21^st century, and this time when we boast of being more civilized than ever. The greed for money and power and the desire to take, amidst all forgery and lies is being overlooked by the people who can put this right. I don’t believe that the judge was coaxed into allowing them to be moved, he might have know very well what is going on. To contradict my self and comments though, I would really love to see these collections, however, the manner and their ideology behind the moving is what is wrong. In this case it might have the value, but the significance might be worthless. I believe that if Dr. Barnes were around,  he would have granted access to the public, but stayed in it’s home in Montgomery.

 Dr. Albert C. Barnes will and wish should have been followed and respected because whatever the case, the collection was still in America and it is one of the best art collections of impressionist art. It is quite sad and interesting that when Walter  Annenberg died and left his collection to the Metropolitan Museum of art in New York, he said that it should never be moved, sold or loaned.

June Shin

There is not doubt that Barnes was one of the most extraordinary art collector and educator whose clear vision was unprecedented. The breadth of the works in the Barnes collection is astonishing, but Dr. Barnes didn’t buy all paintings he himself enjoyed. Camp tells us that Barnes loved Georgia O’Keeffe’s paintings but didn’t buy them because they did not fit with the rest of his collection. That is, O’Keeffe’s works did not suit his purpose. It is evident that Dr. Barnes had a clear idea as to what he wanted to achieve with his collection. In Camp’s words, “he was not building a private collection; he was building a teaching collection.” (Barnes). He believed that artists had a special gift of perception and wanted people to learn how to perceive like artists, which he thought would help them sculpt a better democracy (Barnes). However, appalled by the failure of Philadelphia to appreciate and learn from the astounding collection he had put together and disgusted by those who exploited art to use merely as a backdrop to their social and political agenda, he dramatically restricted the public’s access to his collection. He chose “quality experience” over “mass experience” (The Art of Steal) There was not the slightest hint of anything commercial in what Dr. Barnes did with his art collection.

Dr. Barnes arranged the artworks not according to subject matter, style or period but in such a way that the works communicated with each other. Something that left me a lasting impression from The Art of Steal was one of the Friends of the Barnes Foundation’s statement that art is life. It seems to me that Dr. Barnes’ arrangement of his art may be closer to the way in which we experience life than any of the traditional “museum” methods. According to Kimberly Camp, Dr. Barnes chose certain characteristic(s), whether it be color, form, subject matter, etc., around which the ensembles of artworks were put together to create different experiences of art (Barnes). I believe that his manner of presentation of his art was an art in itself. But then again, that he chose a different organization than that of a museum should not be so surprising because the Barnes was not museum. Dr. Barnes could not have been clearer about that. When I saw that one room in which African sculptures and portraits of white sitters were shown together in complete harmony with each other, I thought, this is a room that tells a story. A story so genuine and so original that I had to pause the film just to stare. It was life that I felt at that moment---a life that only the specific works chosen to be shown where they were shown could create. They were displayed with the same importance and dignity, and I couldn’t help but wish that I were a student at the Barnes when Dr. Barnes was alive.

However, I do think that his dream was perhaps too good to be realized. In today’s world where so many people are driven by money and power, keeping such expensive gallery solely for educational purposes was probably an impossible dream to begin with. Beautiful, but impossible. Watching the film The Art of Steal infuriated me at times and saddened me at others. In it, someone said that “culture is an industry” (The Art of Steal). And we all know that art is one of the biggest parts that form culture. Whether we want to accept it, art too is inevitably an industry. I think that an important question here worthy of consideration is whether Dr. Barnes’ wish to keep such a stunning collection of significant artworks hidden away from the public a wise decision. It was certainly a wish that deserved to be kept, but since it’s now stripped away, let’s face it: Regardless of how noble his dream was, was it really a better idea than to make it available for more people? Do the people who will get something out of his collection when moved to Philadelphia outweigh the cost of art being used as a social and political tool by people who have nothing else than pretension and money? It is a difficult question to answer but an important one for the future. Camp said that Dr. Barnes was always questioning and reassessing his assumptions and values. In modern times where discoveries and changes happen so quickly, this kind of flexible thinking, open-mindedness, and self-assessment are in dire need to achieve progress. Dr. Barnes seems to have strayed from this as he came to be adamantly rigid with regards to what is to be done with his art toward the end of his life, but his lifelong battle against Philadelphia’s alienists and those tried to bring him and his foundation down, his struggle to keep modern art alive, and his effort to educate turned his life into a work of art in itself, and it is his spirit and passion that we should continue to preserve and combine with some flexibility of mind.

Works Cited

The Art of Steal. Dir. Don Argott. 9.14 Pictures, 2010. Philadelphia, PA. Web. 7 Jan. 2012. <http://www.videolinks4u.net/video/videos/166989/>.

The Barnes Foundation. "Neurotic Cities: Barnes in Philadelphia." Slought Foundation Online Content. [01 April 2004; Accessed 8 January 2012]. <http://slought.org/content/11183/>. 

McKenzie Sullivan

In 1912, Dr. Albert C. Barnes, who derived his fortune from his development of the antiseptic drug, began to dedicate himself to the pursuit of the arts. While in Paris, Barnes visited the home Gertrude Stein where he became familiar with the work of such Modernist artists as Henri Matisse and Pablo Picasso. In the 1920s, he became acquainted with the work of Amedeo Modigliani and Giorgio de Chirico. In 1922, after acquiring huge amounts of Impressionist and Modernist masters works, Barnes transformed his collection into a cultural institution. In 1922 he chartered the Barnes Foundation as an educational institution in the state of Pennsylvania. The mission of the Barnes Foundation is “the promotion of the advancement of education and the appreciation of the fine arts.”

Barnes was able to appreciate the skill and beauty in these Modern works of art. Barnes recognized that many wealthy people simply bough art as upholstery for their homes and were not true patrons of the arts. Barnes rejected this upper class approach to art as a social symbol. He used his wealth to buy great works of art before the artists became internationally recognized. He did this in an effort to protect the art from the exploitation of the materialistic upper class.

Dr. Barnes’ conviction was that the study of art must be rooted in the forms that compose the works themselves, and the traditions of the medium in which they are expressed. Barnes wanted his art students to avoid preoccupation with biographical details about the artists or the social and political climate that surrounded the artist. He set up the foundation as an intimate setting for some of the greatest masterpieces of art, with multiple paintings, furniture and other fixtures on each wall. He wanted his collection to forever be a place where people could best appreciate the art. Barnes was so adamant that his collection not be turned to socially conscious collectors or those who exploited art for money and status that he drew up his will to ban any sale or loan of art from his collection. A line in his will states: "The Democratic nature of this institution shall be preserved at all times"- Barnes. 

Dr. Barnes recognized that art is as universal as human nature, that art of all periods and places share broad human values and aesthetic qualities. The paintings in the art gallery of the Barnes Foundation are hung to illustrate aesthetic principles, and not according to historical periods or by schools of painting as in many Museums. Hung in groups, the paintings allow the viewer to compare the balanced units as to qualities, traditions, and meanings.

In his unique display of the collection Dr. Barnes’s intended to demonstrate that aesthetic attributes can be appreciated wherever they are found: the qualities that make paintings meaningful are the same qualities that make everyday objects, and life itself, meaningful.  The inclusion of the "hardware" and other artifacts like door handles and hinges etc., emphasizes this principle. The artifacts are hung to dramatize or underline some aspect of the paintings in their proximity: the keys on the wall next to the Cezanne Card Players are in line with the pipes on the wall in the painting and the metal ornaments surrounding the Seurat Poseuses aline with its synthetic drawing. Every room, object, artifact and painting at the Barnes Foundation is fundamental to the design of its art display, teaching people to see.

                                                                         (Cezanne's Card Players)

Barnes’ collection was envied by many of the largest and most prestigious art institutions worldwide. His pieces have been assigned astronomical value due to the international recognition of the artists, the aesthetic quality of the paintings in his possession and the exclusivity of his collection that was closed off from the traditional art world. What I believe really contributes to the value of Barnes’ collection was also Barnes' own love and passion for his collection and his socially conscious agenda to teach students about art. The exclusivity of Barnes collection was seen as selfish and he developed a public image as a terrible grumpy old man; however, the structure of his foundation was actually quite altruistic. Barnes assembled his collection in a way that could cultivate a learning environment. He wasn’t interested in a mass experience he was interested in a quality experience. Dr. Barnes created a realization about a set of ideas. Barnes believed in the emotional connect between the art and the observer not the segregation of works based on differences. He put all artworks equal to each other, disregarding how famous or successful an artist had been. By doing this Barnes was saying something about humans that we are all the same. 

The Barnes foundation became the single most important American cultural monument of the first half of the 20th century.  

Elena Cestero

The fascinating history of the Barnes Foundation and its creator, Albert Barnes, demonstrates clearly that “culture is industry” as his collection was institutionalized in opposition to everything that he had desired. As we see in the documentary The Art of the Steal, it is be incredibly hard to place a specific value on the collection due to its unparalleled quality and size but it is estimated to be worth many billions of dollars.  There are many determinants of the value of the Barnes collection including quality, rarity, and size/scope of the collection as a whole.

As seen at a Sotheby’s auction in the film, insignificant and/or unattractive pieces of art sell at auctions simply because they are authored by famous artists whether the quality is especially good or not.  One of the most important aspects of the Barnes collection is the quality of art that it contains.  Barnes not only formed an extensive collection of art by renowned artists (Renoir, Cezanne, Matisse, Picasso, Seurat, and Van Gogh), but also a collection of many of their most beautiful and important (historically and aesthetically) works.  Barnes simply had great taste in art.

The rarity of and limited access to the works in the Barnes collection also helps determine its monumental value and make it even more desirable.  The collection is unlike any in the world and features works that are trademarks of and define post-impressionist and modern art, and are incredibly significant to the history of art and humanity as a whole.  There are some pieces in the Barnes collection that have no comparison like Cezanne’s La Danse which is like nothing else ever created by the artist.  That the art is not in a conventional museum and as readily available to the masses combined with the rarity of the pieces contributes greatly to its value.

The size and scope of the collection as a whole also has a large effect on the value.  The value of each separate piece would be much less than the value of the collection as a whole because it represents a complete and thorough summary and overview of an entire style and historical period. Together, these three elements as well as others contribute to the value of the Barnes collection, although some would argue that the importance of the collection is so great that it is priceless.

I think that context certainly contributes to the valuation of art.  The works in the collection are of such fine quality (Cézanne's "Card Players"), that they are certainly very valuable and significant individually but definitely not as much as a part of the collection. Galleries and patrons likewise contribute to the valuation of art through their interest.  If modern art had not come to be recognized and appreciated as other than insanity (Braddock), then there would no desire by galleries or patrons to obtain it, and it would not have much monetary value (arguably it would retain some historical value though perhaps not as great).

Barnes interest in African and African American art was incredibly forward thinking for his time.  He did not discriminate in his love of art and appreciated equally art from different places, people, and genres.  That Barnes left his collection to Lincoln University was a direct challenge to the social norms of the time.  He rejected the conservative/racist elite and increased the importance and influence of Lincoln University and therefore also of African Americans.  The takeover of the collection from the university robbed it of one of its greatest assets and demonstrated the power and lack of respect that money can exert whether private or public.   

The same rejection of the influences of wealth and power, and emphasis on social consciousness influenced how Barnes assembled his collection perhaps as much as his taste.  But, as witnessed in the documentary, the figures/institutions of power clearly care everything for the quality of the Barnes collection and its economic value and nothing for his philosophy and its significance to the collection.  If they did, they would not allow it to be appropriated and moved against his wishes and everything the Barnes Foundation stands (or stood) for.

La Danse by Matisse from the Barnes collection.

Jacqueline Park

Tadd Phillips

Khrystyne Wilson

Albert Barnes was an influential collector of art in the early-mid 1900's. Although he originated from humble beginnings, Barnes became successful and subsequently wealthy due to his finding of a medicine to prevent venereal disease in infants. Shortly after, with some help from a collegue, Barnes began his interest in collecting art, and amassed one of the greatest American collections of art. 

Barnes had an instinct when in came to art, and through his visit to France, he developed a progressive taste in art that was beyond his time, and thus began to collect pieces from artists that would soon become incredibly famous, such as Cezanne, Picasso, Renior and Matisse. Through his acquisition, and subsequent displaying of his pieces, Barnes created one of the most impressive collections unmatched by any museum of the time.

Barnes was quite different from the museums, and galleries in how he displayed his collection. He did not group the pieces by artist, time period, or even style, but rather positioned them by aesthetic appeal. He also was unlike museums in that he would not buy a piece simply because it was created by a famous artist, but would only purchase one if it appealed to him aesthetically, thus his collection became famous, not only because of the pieces themselves, but because of the overall display of the collection where artists and styles mixed together to create the most pleasing visual experience.
Barnes also had a very interesting social agenda. Because he was from humble beginnings, he had no desire to appeal towards the academic and  high society crowd that frequented museums. For this reason, along with personal issues with some of the leading art critics and collectors of the time, Barnes would not allow his pieces to be sold to a museum, and would not open the collection to the public as a museum would. Instead, he started a foundation for students and academics of art to visit and study not only the pieces themselves, but the overall transferred values seen through the displaying of the art. This lead to his friendship with Horace Mann Bond, and Lincoln University, a black college in Pennsylvania. Barnes would invite students from Lincoln University to study the collection. This coupled with his already existent interest in African American Art, helped to promote African American Art and artists in society. One example of these artists was Horace Pippin, who studied at the Barnes Institution. With the help of Barnes, Pippin went on to become a successful artist. Without his introduction to Barnes, and his exposure to the Barnes collection, Pippin may not have been as successful.
One of Pippin's pieces displayed in the Barnes Collection
By not adhering to the normal social agendas of museums and art collectors of his time, Barnes created an incredibly unique collection. His refusal to buy all art by one artist, or display it in a specific manner, or allow the public to view the pieces kept the integrity of the art and their artists, along with the culture of the pieces themselves intact. Although many of the pieces would have certainly been successful without Barnes influence, based on the artists themselves, and their clear mastery of art in these pieces, I believe their significance and value has increased because they were located in Barnes collection.

Monetarily, perhaps the value of the art pieces has not changed. If one were to take each individual piece from the Barnes collection and sell it, the profit piece by piece would most likely be the same as were the pieces not housed in the Barnes collection. However, the collection intact and together is worth much more. Not only does the intrigue of the collection, brought about by Barnes' elusive nature and refusal to become a public museum, add value to each piece in his collection, but also the manner of displaying the pieces, and the fact that the collection is so different from any other increases the significance of the art to an unparalleled level. I believe if the pieces were not in the Barnes collection, they would not be as significant as they are. 

With this in mind, the context of the Barnes collection becomes very important in the value of the pieces. However, I don't believe all contexts can say the same. Because of how Barnes put together, and exhibited his collection, coupled with his social agenda and personality increased the significance, however in other cases the context could bring down, or simply not alter the significances of the art therein. 

It is clear that the Barnes collection is unparalleled, and was one of the most interesting and influential collections in America in the 20th century, and it is a shame that Albert Barnes' wishes were not followed.

Nicholas Kristov

The Barnes collection has an incredibly storied history, deeply rooted in artistic, political and social issues. Barnes himself wanted his collection to forever be a place where people could best appreciate the art without the backdrop of sterile museum walls, socially conscious collectors, and those only out to exploit art for money and status. His will went so far as to ban any sale or loan of the art, what so ever. The Barnes foundation was set up as an intimate setting for some of the greatest masterpieces of art, with multiple paintings, furniture and other fixtures on each wall. This setting was a stark contrast for normal museums who initially scoffed at his collection. However the collection now is seen as the most extensive collection of Cezanne's, Matisses, among countless others. The value of this collection is not just driven by the intrinsic value of the art but the situation in which the Barnes collection is in because of Dr. Barnes' trust. There are multiple ways to value the collection including- possible cash flows from exhibitions, sales of similar works/ collections, and finally quantifying the affect Barnes and the battles over his trust had on the public's demand for the paintings. 

Possible cash-flows from exhibitions

 One of the simpler ways to value the collection is to estimate the revenue that can be taken in from putting the Barnes collection on display, similar to the Louvre, MoMA, or any similar art gallery. Last year the Louvre drew a record 8.8 million people to view its collection. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/8993072/The-Louvre-attracts-record-visitor-numbers.html). The estimation would act as a perpetuity, providing cash flow estimates based on admissions rates. This valuation, however does not accurately take into account the one-of-a-kind features of the collection. The fact is that any collection with this amount of master pieces will eclipse all other museums and galleries in terms of prestige and attendance. Another part of the problem with this method is that the demand just for seeing these pieces live is insatiable. One visitor to Barnes in 2007 described his expeience saying he was told that tours at Barnes " were booked booked up over 30 days in advance". The historical significance of the collection cannot be accurately taken into account and therefor, this metric is likley to yield the smallest valuation. 

Similar works/collections

Another way to value the collection is to compare it to other works by the same artist. In 2009 in the midst of the world's recession, a Matisse was sold for 32 million euros (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/artsales/4789578/Matisse-sells-for-record-32m-euros-at-Yves-Saint-Laurent-sale-of-the-century-at-Christies.html). Comparing one Matisse to another is a much more difficult proposition though. The iconic "Joy of Life" (below) is held in the Barns, and along with the value of the art itself, comes the value of the story of Dr. Barnes himself.  Ultimately, it is purely speculative to state that Barnes' collection would take 10x more in an auction than Yves Saint Laurent's (recently sold), especially when the argument over his will has been raging on for decades. The collection may lose its notoriety 20 years from now, however it is doubtful the paintings will ever lose value due to their extreme rarity. 
Quantifying the demand for Barnes' collection

The most accurate way to value the collection is to piece it out for auction.  The pieces in the collection are unrivaled. However, the battles over Barnes' will and the historical significance can only be accurately measured by bringing the pieces to auction. Many believed that Barnes' eye for art was ahead of his time. Criticized by the media for his collection, Barnes stood up for his views. The idea that one could accurately measure the affect on buyers' opinions and bidding is impossible. That being said, after the collection is pieced out and sold, it is unclear how long the label of "previously in Barnes' collection" will stick on these pieces. While at the moment, it would seem that a Barnes Matisse would sell for higher than a non-Barnes Matisse, however 30 years from now that may not be the case. And further, there are no to pieces which are the same, making the comparison even more difficult. 

Barnes' support for African American art. 

Barnes felt slighted by the mass media. Bombarded by the newspapers, Annenberg personally, and the social elite with criticism it is no wonder why Barnes felt the need to leave his collection to a group which was not part of the social art collectors. Instead, providing Lincoln College the opportunity to ensure that trustees prolong the collection for the betterment of Art eduction, Barnes aimed to help those who had a passion but were not part of the social art elite. The legacy Barnes leaves with his collection is for the selective masses to enjoy. While he did not open the collection to the world, he opened it to those who would truly value the art academically and emotionally- not those who would use it for monetary gain. 

Barnes' collection and agenda

Barnes collection represented his socially conscious agenda, not just in the people he let see the art, but the art which was in the collection. Instead of being displayed one piece at a time, like many museums, the Barnes collection has many pieces of many different categories put together in an aesthetically pleasing way. Barnes allowed a racially mixed workforce in his factories, and seemed to take a similar approach to his collection. Putting folk art and a Picasso next to each other surrounded by furniture accenting both pieces was the way he believed art should be seen. Barnes believed in the emotional connect between the art and the observer- not the segregation of works based on differences in styles. 

Kelly Zona

Albert Barnes made invaluable contributions to the advancement of art, psychology, and education through the establishment of the Barnes Foundation. Barnes challenged opponents of modern art, and in doing so, helped advance existing institutional structures in the U.S. Because of its historical and cultural significance, the Barnes collection has been called the most valuable collection of Post Impressionist and Early Modernist works worldwide.

Barnes had been a serious collector of art since 1912, and by 1922 he was able to start the Barnes Foundation for the purpose of “the promotion of the advancement of education and the appreciation of the fine arts.” [1]. However, the year previous to the establishment of his foundation, Barnes found himself in the midst of a battle over the legitimacy of modern art. A few small exhibitions in Philadelphia sought to introduce modern art to the public, but these shows were met with great resistance by those who argued modernism was created through insanity. Most notably of these opponents, Dr. Francis Xavier Dercum, insisted that modern art contained a “pathological element” [5]. In a genius move to counter the opponents, Barnes linked modernism with the “new psychology” and challenged them using their own terms. He offered to donate his collection to the city of Philadelphia if Dr. Dercum to “prove himself qualified in the science of normal and abnormal psychology” [5]. Attempts to refute were futile, and the tide of public opinion eventually changed. Thus, the Barnes collection is immensely valued for its link to the struggle for control over cultural institutions in the early twentieth century.

The collection is also highly valued because of the quality and uniqueness of the works themselves. Because other major institutions were not yet really competing, Barnes was able to acquire particularly good examples from artists' entire body of works [2]. For example, he acquired Cezanne's Card Players, about which on Sothebys curator states, “Who could afford it? Maybe a nation.” [2]. The quality of the piece, in conjunction with its part in such an important collection make it is almost impossible to assign monetary value to. All of the paintings in the collection it acquire another layer of cultural and historical value because of their context. In fact, one wonders if paintings like this should ever be assigned monetary value and sold to private collectors or if they rightfully belong to the public.

Barnes' own eccentric and passionate personality also add greatly to the value of the collection. As already mentioned, he was a contentious character, unafraid to challenge the establishment. He was considered ahead of his time, not just for his taste in art, but also for his progressive social values. It seems that moving the paintings was met with such protest because people genuinely loved Barnes and felt that the link to him gave the works a much richer significance. So it appears that the legacy of the owner can add much value to the work, especially in terms of cultural and historical value.

Lastly, Barnes' progressive social values greatly influenced the value of his collection. He emphasized the role of education in the Barnes foundation, and thought of it as a school first and foremost [2]. He developed his own theories on education “drawn from the ideas of William James, George Santayana, and John Dewey- about how people looked at and learned from art” [1]. This educational agenda is still very much a part of the Barnes foundation today and can be found on its website: http://www.barnesfoundation.org/education/. Barnes wanted to make sure that his collection would continue to be run the way he intended, and after a chain of inheritants, it was finally willed to Lincoln University. Barnes' clearly progressive social agenda sets his collection apart from other private collections, and it is difficult to imagine so many people fighting to preserve the foundation without this.

Despite the rich history of the Barnes Foundation, most of the works were eventually moved to Philadelphia from the original site after a series of battles for control over the collection. This brings up the difficult issue of when art becomes a public commodity. Who should really be able to control the art? Can such a large amount of historically and culturally significant art remain one persons property? Is it better that the works now have a more publicly accessible venue or did the quality and historical significance of the original setting outweigh this? (see images below) 

[3]                                                                     [4]

Bibilography:

[1] http://www.barnesfoundation.org/

[2] http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/The_Art_of_the_Steal/70123257?trkid=2361637 or the

[3] http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/b/barnes_foundation/index.html

[4] http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&hl=en&client=firefox-a&sa=N&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&biw=1464&bih=931&tbm=isch&tbnid=n6UosQ5AAja6YM:&imgrefurl=http://geraldstiebel.blogspot.com/2010_06_01_archive.html&docid=iQOHEBlNZ-1xsM&imgurl=http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ayAUQLDg7_w/TBKV5UTJ80I/AAAAAAAAANk/Qe7EkLJaCDQ/s1600/Barnes.jpg&w=800&h=533&ei=mvoKT8raIOnZ0QGc3qBB&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=1156&vpy=643&dur=431&hovh=164&hovw=199&tx=203&ty=156&sig=107065817656893031348&page=4&tbnh=164&tbnw=199&start=83&ndsp=27&ved=1t:429,r:26,s:83

[5] http://slought.org/content/11183/