The controversy arises not from the sheer wealth of art but its rightful display. When Barnes established his foundation, he mandated that his collection be used "for art education, not commercial display." "The artworks couldn’t be lent, sold or moved,"noted Kazakina. "The galleries were to be open to the public only two days a week; other days were dedicated to educational programs." But after decades of litigation surrounding the foundation, Barnes' original wishes for his collection were gradually superseded. In a heartfelt article departing from the Weekly Standard's usual conservative line, Lance Esplund chronicled the recent history of the museum after decades in hibernation following a dispute with Philadelphia Inquirer publisher Walter Annenberg in 1951:
When the foundation reopened in 1995, it had audio guides and a gift shop that sold coffee mugs, T-shirts, color reproductions, and jewelry. A gallery referred to as the “Dutch Room,” housing decorative arts, had disappeared and an elevator taken its place. With increased visitors came pollution and traffic. The Barnes’s neighbors understandably complained: Tour buses blocked their driveways; fast food wrappers littered their lawns, which were trampled by tourists. [Barnes Foundtion president Richard] Glanton embarked on rounds of endless litigation—including suing the Barnes's neighbors for racism (Glanton is black). In the end, nearly $6 million of the Barnes’s endowment was spent on attorney fees. The Barnes was suddenly broke. When Glanton was not reelected, a new president was instated. Admission fees were again increased; a parking lot was added; 1,200 visitors were allowed in per week. But those in charge were truly only interested in the final solution. ...Since the release of "The Art of the Steal," admirers of the Barnes collection have howled over the move:
The new Barnes is scheduled to open in downtown Philadelphia by 2012.
- It's A Legal Problem Discussing the film in March, Jamie Johnson of Vanity Fair portrays the conflict as couched in legal ambiguities, declaring the controversy over the Barnes collection "glaringly manipulative, and sometimes unlawful, interpretations of high-profile wills." "Contrary to what most people might believe, the rich routinely fail to draft effective trust agreements that faithfully carry out their dying wishes," notes Johnson. "In fact, power struggles over inherited wealth are so endemic in the culture of affluence that nearly all of the nation’s most profitable law firms maintain trust-and-estates divisions whose sole purpose is to handle such disputes—and reap the financial rewards." While Johnson concedes that "no illegality has ever been proven" with regards to the specific stipulation's in Barnes' will, there remains the distinct possibility of outside influences commandeering his legacy. "Thanks to the vagaries of legal documents and the general greed that money seems always to breed in humans, the rich rarely get to control their bequests from the grave."
- It's A Commercialization Problem In the Weekly Standard, Esplund
bemoans the Barnes collection's move to the center of a
commercial circus. "It is such people who are hell-bent on turning
museums into shopping malls with ease of access to the 'customer,'"
"Through homogenization and expansion, they have already ruined
once-great institutions such as the Museum of Modern Art, the Brooklyn
Museum, and the Morgan Library. There is a belief that getting more
people in the door is a museum’s prime function." Esplund emphasizes the
need to respect the founder's intent: what would Barnes have wanted?
"Barnes gave life to a unique institution, and its present-day stewards
should be obligated to follow the ethical oath of others (medical
doctors and art conservators among them) entrusted with the care of the
living: First, do no harm. The relocation of the Barnes is disguised as
altruism, but it is fueled solely by ignorance and avarice."
- It's About Context The Los Angeles Times' Christopher
Knight agrees with Esplund's assertion that the Foundation's move
is fueled by "ignorance." "The uniqueness of the Barnes Foundation in
Merion, Pa., is a primary reason for the difficulty in explaining why
the planned move ... is such a gut-wrenching tragedy," laments Knight. "A simple
sentence, encapsulating shorthand or a brief paragraph just cannot
explain it. The problem is compounded when most readers are accustomed
to museum galleries that have almost nothing in common with the Barnes.
Sui generis, constituting a class of its own, the Barnes Foundation is
literally incomparable." Knight's closing criticism of Esplund and the
Weekly Standard only drives home his conviction on the Barnes
Foundation's move. "On art, Esplund is a critic with whom I don't agree
about much," scoffs Knight. "And I think the Weekly Standard is,
typically, a magazine best picked up with long-handled tongs..." Nevertheless, he calls Esplund's article "often enlightening."