...
Individual Contributions
| Panel |
|---|
Christina Chaplin 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? |
| Panel |
|---|
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. |
...
| Panel | ||
|---|---|---|
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/
|
| Panel |
|---|
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. 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. |
...