Creating the Market for Modern Art in the United States

Christina Chaplin

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.

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

I first want to say that it would basically be impossible to put an accurate value on Barnes' collection without an auction – something that will never happen.  So it basically comes down to speculation and estimated value of the works themselves, and probably more important, the history, intrigue and notoriety of Barnes and his foundation, especially with the moving of the collection.  Three determinants come to mind in trying to put a value on Barnes' collection.

I think the first and most obvious factor in determining value has nothing to do with Barnes.  Instead, it is the fame of the artists and the quality of the works themselves that are included in his collection.  I imagine that appraisers could value the pieces of art based on prior sales of artwork from the same artists, but there is probably not much of a recent sale history for the works of Renoir or Picaso or the other artists in his collection.  So this measure of value is kind of limited and basically based on the assessment of expert appraisers.

The second basis for valuing his collection is the legacy and intrigue for which Barnes and his collection are known, something that could be called the "Barnes' factor."  While there are a number of Picaso paintings in the world, most of them are not a "Barnes" Picasso.  It's kind of like something similar to a classic car that is being auctioned off.  If it belonged to a someone who is famous and a collector of classic cars, like Jay Leno, versus someone who is not well-known, then it is probably going to be worth more – a lot more.  And by being both famous (or infamous) for the anti-establishment things he did with his collection, and the fight over relocating the collection long after his death, there is value just because the art was owned by him and the subject of so much controversy, in part because of the Foundation's relationship with Lincoln University.

The third factor is what I'll call overall context.   It is based not only on the history of the Barnes Foundation, but also the value added by the collection being unparalleled, world famous, and never meant to be sold in the first place.  The context of this collection could add value far beyond anyone's imagination as any sale for the artwork would create emotion, passion, worldwide media coverage and a sense of power that by itself could add millions to the value of any of the paintings.  I could easily see some super rich person from China or Russia spending many millions on acquiring something from this collection, not only for value of the painting itself, but more so to be able to "signal" to the world art market that he or she got it.  I think being able to buy a significant piece from this collection in terms of prestige, would be similar, if not greater, than for example buying the Empire State Building.

Gallery owners and patrons play a large role in the valuation of particular works.  But when it comes to this kind of unique collection and distinct history, I think its overall context adds more value than any one factor.   This is seen by the fact that the value and importance of the collection was so powerful that politics and economics basically trumped the wishes of the man who owned the artwork.  The collection and everything about it is a piece of American history unlike any other.

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