Storming the Barnes: Collection or Conspiracy?
In 1922, art collector and philanthropist Albert C. Barnes chartered the Barnes Foundation with the goal of improving the American public’s understanding and appreciation of art. In the ensuing decades, Barnes's combination of wealth and passion allowed him to assemble the world’s greatest private collection of post-impressionist and modern art. In his Pennsylvania home, he hung the paintings of Cezanne, Picasso, Renoir, and Matisse alongside African, Indigenous American, and medieval European art. Estimates of the value of the collection sit at around $25 billion USD.
When Barnes died in 1951, his living trust made it explicit that the Barnes Foundation was to keep his collection exactly as he had left it: displayed in his private residence and available for viewing only by appointment. The trust even specified that the paintings were to remain in the exact position they had occupied in Barnes's expansive home while he was alive. Barnes had carefully planned every detail of his collection’s layout: arranging his paintings not by creator or historical period, but by shape, color, and theme. Barnes was insistent that his collection be used only for art education—seminars, school tours, and workshops for working class art enthusiasts—and not for general display. The Barnes foundation was not, according to the intentions of its creator, a museum open to the viewing public.
The arrangement changed in 2004 when a court granted a request from the Barnes Foundation’s board of trustees to move the collection from Barnes's home to a new public gallery in Philadelphia. The move drew sharp criticism from some art world figures and friends of Barnes who considered it a betrayal of the ideals of the organization’s founder. After all, the paintings belonged to Barnes, and his wishes had explicitly forbidden the transformation of his collection into a public museum with admissions fees. Some, like attorney John Anderson, accused the city of Philadelphia of colluding with the Barnes Foundation’s Board to cash in on a lucrative opportunity to increase tourism downtown. During his lifetime, Barnes was a vocal critic of what he saw as the commercialization and corruption of art, and wanted his foundation to be insulated from commercial pressures. Some artists, most notably Henri Matisse, agreed with Barnes's view, calling his suburban home the only “sane place” to view art in the United States.
Others view the decision differently, arguing that a new facility open to the public increases access to beautiful and historically significant works of art. In their view, the intentions of a long-dead donor are less important than the good the collection could do if the paintings were easier for the public to see and enjoy.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
Do we have a duty to abide by the terms of a dead person’s will or living trust if doing so comes at some cost to the living?
Why might one think that people have a moral right to control what happens to their property after their deaths?
Is it permissible to limit public access to great works of art as Barnes did?
Is the value of creating or appreciating art undermined by commercialization?
References
[1] The Barnes Foundation, “About the Barnes”
[2] The designers of the Foundation’s new home have taken considerable pains to preserve the collection’s original layout. See NPR, “Barnes Foundation Changes Location, But Little Else”
[3] NPR, “'Art Of The Steal': Actual Heist Or Conspiracy Theory?"
EXPLORE MORE CONTEXT
Article
Article