...
| Panel |
|---|
Jacqueline Park |
| Panel |
|---|
Tadd Phillips |
| Panel |
|---|
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. 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.Krystyne Wilson |
| Panel |
|---|
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. 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. |
...