Creating the Market for Modern Art in the United States

Christina Chaplin

Dalanda Jalloh

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

Kwame Nana-Atoo

Joo Shin

McKenzie Sullivan

Elena Cestero

Jacqueline Park

Tadd Phillips

Krystyne Wilson

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