Albert C. Barnes, surveying his collection, c. 1940.
DAY 6: Today is Wednesday, June 8,th and we examine the growth of the market for modern European art in the United States through the
legendary art collector and philanthropist, Albert C. Barnes. Barnes, who came from working-class roots in late nineteenth century Philadelphia
amassed an unparalleled collection of post-Impressionists works, including 181 Renoirs, 69 Cézannes, 59 Matisses, 46 Picassos and several
other works by noted European and American artists. Listen to (or read, but the audio version is much richer, especially with Kimberly Camp's
response) Jeremy Braddock's essay "Neurotic Cities: Barnes in Philadelphia" and watch the riveting documentary, the Art of the Steal, about
the controversial move of the Barnes Foundation from its original site in Merion, Pennsylvania to Philadelphia. You may obtain this from Netflix
(streaming or DVD) http://movies.netflix.com/WiSearch?v1=The%20Art%20of%20the%20Steal&oq=art%20of%20the%20stea&ac_posn=1 or
the Africana Library if you're in Ithaca.
Questions to consider: To be sure, the complex history of the Barnes Foundation, the brilliance of the art itself, Dr. Barnes' eccentricities, and
the political and institutional struggles of the organization contribute to the value of this collection. Discuss at least three determinants of value
for the Barnes collection, taking into consideration the one-of-a-kind nature of the works and their historical significance. If some of these now
famous works of art, Cézanne's "Card Players" for example, were not part of Dr. Barnes' collection, would they hold the same value and significance
within art history today? In other words, how much does context contribute to the valuation of art? To what degree do the gallery owners and
patrons of art contribute to the valuation of particular works? Finally, you might also consider the legacy of Dr. Barnes' support of and interest
in African and African American art and the controversy surrounding the wrestling of the Foundation from the governance of Lincoln University.
African American artists like Horace Pippin, for example, studied at the Barnes Foundation and his career as an American folk artist took off in
the 1940s, due in large part to the support of Barnes and Edith Gregor Halpert, a noted New York gallerist of American mid-century art. How did
Dr. Barnes' personal taste and socially conscious agenda contribute to the value and shape of his collection?
The Art of the Steal, 2009. 101 min. Dir. Don Argott. (DVD 514, Africana Library)
Read: Jeremy Braddock, Neurotic Cities: Barnes in Philadelphia http://www.jstor.org/pss/4134504 or
Listen to: "Neurotic Cities: Barnes in Philadelphia,http://slought.org/content/11183/
Individual Contributions
Vincent Anthony Falkiewicz
Erica Gilbert-Levin
The Barnes Foundation, located in a small town outside Philadelphia, housed a monumental Post-Impressionist and Modern Art collection, one of "the last great personal collections in the world," according to The Art of the Steal, and embodying Barnes's personal value of quality in art, of art to be appreciated for its aesthetic worth and capacity to educate, and not for commercial exploitation and mass consumption. To be "Barnes-worthy," a piece had to be almost larger than life with respect to its aesthetic value and quality. It had to be "jaw-dropping," "earth-shaking," both "attractive and significant," to belong in a place of such artistic genius and beauty (The Art of the Steal). A work had to contribute to Barnes's purpose of educating – the Foundation, after all, was a school and specifically not a museum – and so had to say something about or represent an important role in art making and art history. According to Braddock, to belong in the collection a piece must possess an already-achieved cultural and institutional value. And it had to contribute to Barnes's ambition to forge a connection between modern art and modern psychology (see Braddock).
In this context, a work of art that garnered the honor of being housed in the Barnes collection would, it seems, gain value, respect, and cultural and institutional authority above and beyond any it already possessed merely by virtue of this honor. Barnes's selection of a painting was considered so utterly on-point when it came to value and quality, his intellectual and cultural authority trusted beyond measure, that one imagines he had the power to choose a painting that perhaps even he secretly disdained (not that he would ever do this), and it would still be instantly deemed Barnes-worthy by virtue of its selection by Barnes himself. It seems to me slightly arbitrary to place in the hands of one man, genius or not, the power to determine the quality and value of a work of art. He became such a godly figure in the intellectual art world that his judgment appeared beyond question and probably purely objective, or as close to objective as possible in domain that is based entirely on subjective determinants.
Kimberly Ann Phoenix
Some of the factors to consider while looking at the value of the Barnes Foundation would be the man, the art, and the place. Dr. Barnes was an interesting man, coming to appreciate art though not formally educated in art. His classes to study the relationship between psychology and art in his factory can be viewed as the beginning of the great collection that is right now in the hands of the Barnes Foundation. These works are for now housed a building that Dr. Barnes created to challenge the established way of viewing art. Rather then hanging on a white or neutral background alone, the works are grouped with other artifacts to compliment or challenge the viewer. The rooms are small and intimate giving the patrons a different way to view art. Dr. Barnes was always questioning his views challenging himself to make sure that he was offering the best of the art world to those who wanted to see it. He was more concerned with helping the common man see these great works, then impressing so art critic. In the audio portion of this assignment Kimberly Camp stated that Dr. Barnes was worried that after he was gone "how would the foundation go on?" he didn't want to make a bunch of ridged rules that would hinder the growth or changes that need to happen to see the foundation continue and grow. The foundation continued after his death continuing to "promote the advancement of education and the appreciation of the fine arts"(barnesfoundation.org).
The artwork that is part of the foundation can only be described as priceless. Having these work together as groups rather then individuals only increases the value. By displaying the art together you can begin to see similarities and differences in artist and movements. The combination of works is interesting and valuable way to display these works of art. To that end the move from the arboretum setting to the Museum in downtown Philadelphia will be a great tragedy to Dr. Barnes honor. He chose this setting to challenge views to think differently to view things from different points of view. The works will continue to have the monetary value, but what is the human value that is lost?
Consider & comment:
What did you think of today's readings and wiki features? What issues if any did they raise for you? How did the audio visual material provided support your understanding of this topic? Comment on your classmates' posts. Leave your comments in the box below.