Stay in the Loop
BSR publishes on a weekly schedule, with an email newsletter every Wednesday and Thursday morning. There’s no paywall, and subscribing is always free.
For art's sake, move the Barnes
For art's sake, move the Barnes—
to the Art Museum's campus
RICHARD R. FEUDALE
If the Barnes Foundation is to be moved from Merion to Philadelphia, it should be moved to the Philadelphia Art Museum’s north side expansion site, as opposed to the Youth Center site lower down on the Parkway.
Together on a single campus, the Art Museum and the Barnes Foundation could create a shared gallery space, where some of the Barnes pieces could be shown alongside pieces from the Art Museum collections. In the process, they would complement each other in a way that would uniquely enhance art appreciation like no other experience in the world.
Two Manets, never viewed together
Consider one small example. In all the arguments about whether or not to move the Barnes, has anyone ever noticed the relationship between two paintings by Edouard Manet— one owned by the Barnes, the other by the Art Museum? Barnes's Manet is a painting of ship tarrers applying tar to the underbelly of a beached ship; the other Manet, in the Art Museum’s rotunda, applies the same general tones to an entirely different subject: the idle rich embarking on a boat ride. Together these two works form an allegory of the issues of labor vs. opulence, which confronted France in the 19th Century. I wonder what Zola or Manet would have thought if they were told that the two pieces would never, ever, be shown together again?
This issue, respectfully, isn't about preserving one brilliant collector’s institution unchanged, in perpetuity. It’s about building on his legacy to create a living, breathing vehicle dedicated to the love and understanding of art.
The Barnes method or learning format is just that: a method. To be intellectually true and not self-limiting, it needs to be an open method. That is, we as the future collectors, educators, historians and stewards of art must be able to build on and expand Barnes's efforts for education's sake.
A critical mass of Picassos
The Barnes aspires to offer the definitive experience in art education. Yet the Barnes doesn't have a very big post-1907 Picasso collection. How definitive can an educational experience be without more works by this father of cubism? The Art Museum, on the other hand, owns three big cubist Picasso pieces, circa 1912 (including the superfine Man With Violin) and the best Duchamp collection in the world. These additions leapfrog you forward from what Barnes was collecting; they build on his message. A shared special display space would afford the Art Museum the opportunity to mount a special Picasso exhibit to complement the Barnes’s educational mission for comprehensive art history education.
Or consider: The Barnes Foundation currently owns several of the Cezanne Bathers pieces, including The Bathers itself. The Art Museum owns the penultimate study of The Bathers hanging in its rotunda. These pieces share the same city, yet they can never, ever, be seen together. The Art Museum is planning a major “Cézanne and Beyond” exhibit” in 2009, but all of the Barnes Foundation’s Cézannes will be left out.
The Art Museum has its Monet room, while the Barnes Foundation has the self-portrait of Monet in his House Boat painting. Must these works remain forever apart?
What would Albert Barnes say?
This kind of segregation is intellectually absurd. In his more idealistic moments, I suspect the embattled Dr. Barnes would have agreed.
To be sure, Albert Barnes struggled to maintain dead-hand control against the hordes of Main Line folks who he felt might break up his collection and his educational vision. But above all he was an educator. He himself often loved to move his own paintings for intellectual examination and comparison. So why shouldn't we?
Many of the Art Museum’s collections were apparently purchased by Albert Barnes’s wealthy contemporaries, whom Barnes regarded as his competitors. This is unfortunate. Yet personalities aside, these collections, by their very nature, belong together with his. In the world of art, the bottom line should be about enhancing art and culture, not ownership or personality rights.
A shining jewel on the hill
There's a way to keep the Barnes private while simultaneously keeping it on the Art Museum hill. For instance, deed a part of the Art Museum grounds to the Barnes at the north side expansion site to maintain the Barnes Foundation’s private aspect. Then tastefully install a shared area for special displays in conjunction with the Art Museum. This synergy would permit other institutions to bring in their Renoirs to once again be publicly displayed, from time to time, with the Barnes's Renoirs. Or my favorite Bonnard from the Barnes might be shown next to the five or six that the Art Museum owns.
My point is: Don't tuck the Barnes away at the Youth Center. Make it another jewel atop Art Museum Hill. This would be a true architectural challenge that would finally heal the great art world schism between Philadelphia’s art elite and Dr. Albert C. Barnes. Philadelphia, the city of brotherly love, would become the great peacemaker, as well as a beacon of light to the art world instead of an art byway.
To read responses, click here.
to the Art Museum's campus
RICHARD R. FEUDALE
If the Barnes Foundation is to be moved from Merion to Philadelphia, it should be moved to the Philadelphia Art Museum’s north side expansion site, as opposed to the Youth Center site lower down on the Parkway.
Together on a single campus, the Art Museum and the Barnes Foundation could create a shared gallery space, where some of the Barnes pieces could be shown alongside pieces from the Art Museum collections. In the process, they would complement each other in a way that would uniquely enhance art appreciation like no other experience in the world.
Two Manets, never viewed together
Consider one small example. In all the arguments about whether or not to move the Barnes, has anyone ever noticed the relationship between two paintings by Edouard Manet— one owned by the Barnes, the other by the Art Museum? Barnes's Manet is a painting of ship tarrers applying tar to the underbelly of a beached ship; the other Manet, in the Art Museum’s rotunda, applies the same general tones to an entirely different subject: the idle rich embarking on a boat ride. Together these two works form an allegory of the issues of labor vs. opulence, which confronted France in the 19th Century. I wonder what Zola or Manet would have thought if they were told that the two pieces would never, ever, be shown together again?
This issue, respectfully, isn't about preserving one brilliant collector’s institution unchanged, in perpetuity. It’s about building on his legacy to create a living, breathing vehicle dedicated to the love and understanding of art.
The Barnes method or learning format is just that: a method. To be intellectually true and not self-limiting, it needs to be an open method. That is, we as the future collectors, educators, historians and stewards of art must be able to build on and expand Barnes's efforts for education's sake.
A critical mass of Picassos
The Barnes aspires to offer the definitive experience in art education. Yet the Barnes doesn't have a very big post-1907 Picasso collection. How definitive can an educational experience be without more works by this father of cubism? The Art Museum, on the other hand, owns three big cubist Picasso pieces, circa 1912 (including the superfine Man With Violin) and the best Duchamp collection in the world. These additions leapfrog you forward from what Barnes was collecting; they build on his message. A shared special display space would afford the Art Museum the opportunity to mount a special Picasso exhibit to complement the Barnes’s educational mission for comprehensive art history education.
Or consider: The Barnes Foundation currently owns several of the Cezanne Bathers pieces, including The Bathers itself. The Art Museum owns the penultimate study of The Bathers hanging in its rotunda. These pieces share the same city, yet they can never, ever, be seen together. The Art Museum is planning a major “Cézanne and Beyond” exhibit” in 2009, but all of the Barnes Foundation’s Cézannes will be left out.
The Art Museum has its Monet room, while the Barnes Foundation has the self-portrait of Monet in his House Boat painting. Must these works remain forever apart?
What would Albert Barnes say?
This kind of segregation is intellectually absurd. In his more idealistic moments, I suspect the embattled Dr. Barnes would have agreed.
To be sure, Albert Barnes struggled to maintain dead-hand control against the hordes of Main Line folks who he felt might break up his collection and his educational vision. But above all he was an educator. He himself often loved to move his own paintings for intellectual examination and comparison. So why shouldn't we?
Many of the Art Museum’s collections were apparently purchased by Albert Barnes’s wealthy contemporaries, whom Barnes regarded as his competitors. This is unfortunate. Yet personalities aside, these collections, by their very nature, belong together with his. In the world of art, the bottom line should be about enhancing art and culture, not ownership or personality rights.
A shining jewel on the hill
There's a way to keep the Barnes private while simultaneously keeping it on the Art Museum hill. For instance, deed a part of the Art Museum grounds to the Barnes at the north side expansion site to maintain the Barnes Foundation’s private aspect. Then tastefully install a shared area for special displays in conjunction with the Art Museum. This synergy would permit other institutions to bring in their Renoirs to once again be publicly displayed, from time to time, with the Barnes's Renoirs. Or my favorite Bonnard from the Barnes might be shown next to the five or six that the Art Museum owns.
My point is: Don't tuck the Barnes away at the Youth Center. Make it another jewel atop Art Museum Hill. This would be a true architectural challenge that would finally heal the great art world schism between Philadelphia’s art elite and Dr. Albert C. Barnes. Philadelphia, the city of brotherly love, would become the great peacemaker, as well as a beacon of light to the art world instead of an art byway.
To read responses, click here.
Sign up for our newsletter
All of the week's new articles, all in one place. Sign up for the free weekly BSR newsletters, and don't miss a conversation.
