Creating the Market for Modern Art in the United States

Vincent Anthony Falkiewicz

    When considering factors of value, specifically in the case of art, one must look beyond simple factors like cost of production or difficultly of labor.  As the reading alludes to, there are so many more factors to be considered when trying to understand the value of art.  In the specific case of Dr. Barnes and his foundation, one could realistically point to more than three factors that give his property such value.  However, three important factors to focus on are location, the "buy low" mentality of him and his foundation, and obviously the rarity of these pieces.  Although the value of these pieces might somewhat be enhanced by their untouchable nature in the foundation, still these pieces are invaluable to historical art and would have significant value if placed in anyone's hands. 

    For one, as the video and article point out, the location of Barnes collection adds a significant amount of value to it.  The video tells how "if the collection were located in central philadelphia 10 times more people a day could see it."  Barnes was more interested in a "quality experience," however, and did not want to display the collection in such a busy area.  He was actually very adament about keeping the collection away from Philadelphia.  Though this is seemingly simple, it adds great value to the it.  Had the collection been placed and set up like the Metropolitan in New York City, the rarity of not just holding these pieces, but actually seeing these pieces would be reduced.  Thus, the value of the products would also be reduced.

    Additionally, Barnes "buy low" attitude increased the value of his collection.  By this I don't mean that he was a bargainer, only looking for cheap pieces of art.  I mean he was ahead of his time.  He bought pieces of art before they were culturally or socially significant in America.  Because of this, he was able to collect pieces before they were of much value in America.  He wasn't necessarily looking for the "best deal," he was buying quality pieces that he was interested in while also understanding future value.  He probably did not expect the level of historical significance these pieces would eventually have, but he did at least strive to buy these pieces at a time when they were not so socially popular.  Slightly different than buying stock or real estate low, because you only buy them for their expected value.  Barnes was attempting to create the greatest art collection in the world rather than generate revenue, and in turn he created one of the greatest art collections known to man.

   Finally, the untouchable nature of these pieces gives them the most value.  The fact that these pieces can not be sold or moved obviously adds a significant amount to both their cultural and monetary value.  One must take into consideration both kinds of values in the art market, as they play off each other.  This collection being completely untouchable makes it so that if they were ever to be sold or moved, the rarity of that would be so great their value would have to be unimaginably high. 

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?

http://www.barnesfoundation.org