Art of The Steal
By Todd Konrad
In the early 20th century, Philadelphia physician Albert Barnes assembled what would become one of the most valuable art collections of modern times, specifically for the purpose of educating the common person. However, after Barnes’ death, administrative mismanagement, cultural piracy, and old grudges with powerful enemies allowed the virtual hijacking of Barnes’ legacy, over a period of decades, for mere financial gain.
Filmmaker Don Argott documented the long, torturous theft of this American treasure in his film, Art of The Steal, which premiered at the 2009 Toronto Film Festival, and has received its American release courtesy of IFC Films. Argott and I spoke about the systematic attack on The Barnes Collection as well as those who have profited from its mismanagement.
IFQ: For those who haven’t seen the film yet, could you briefly elaborate on what the Barnes Collection itself is and what makes it so valuable?
Don Argott: The Barnes Collection is a collection of Post-Impressionist and early Modern art that was collected between around 1917 to the late Twenties, early Thirties. (Albert) Barnes was buying these artists who were essentially his contemporaries at the time. As you know, most artists die broke and don’t really get their due until many years after they’re gone so I think Barnes had an amazing eye to collect some of these artists’ work like Matisse, Renoir, Cezanne, Van Gogh, Seurat, etc. But the unique part of The Barnes Foundation is he set it up as an educational institution specifically for arts education. That’s the main reason why he bought the paintings he did and assembled the collection.
He did it in this specific way which some would label idiosyncratic because it would not simply consist of a white wall with just a painting hanging on it; there would be whole wall ensembles that were very symmetrical with paintings hanging alongside furniture, African art, and everyday objects like ladles and spoons to illustrate the relationship between “art” and the everyday objects we see every day. So for instance if you looked at a door latch, you’d probably think “well, what’s the big deal?” but then when you display it next to a particular art piece you can see the similarities between the two and appreciate them more. To me, the whole place is a work of art; it’s simply not just a bunch of paintings up on a wall. The whole experience of it and the actual building itself is a work of art.
IFQ: Early on in the film, the idea of “culture industry” is mentioned and I’m curious to know what your thoughts on that are given its place in the story and how so often in this country, culture itself seems to be deemed unworthy of any sort of economic value?
DA: Well I think it’s just like any industry, be it music, film, or whatever; culture itself has become big business with art museums and blockbuster shows. They’ve all had to figure out how to compete for your dollar basically. I don’t think there’s necessarily anything wrong with that and I’m certainly not an anti-museum person or anything. I think it shows though that in this particular instance with The Barnes Foundation, which is something that is not really included in the culture industry per se, that that’s what people want it to be; they have other ideas for the Foundation and collection that does not necessarily align with what the Foundation should be.
That’s not to say though that it can’t be financially sustainable in this environment but it’s this idea of “well, we can’t exploit it in a way that would be really beneficial to make the most money on it, so in order to do so we have to re-imagine what this place is”. That to me is what the quote is all about and embodies what the film is about too, which is why can’t we leave certain things alone? This idea that there are some things in life that should be sacred; and to me The Barnes Foundation is one of them.
IFQ: If one were to play devil’s advocate for someone saying, if the Foundation is just being moved from one place to another then what’s the big deal?
DA: Well it’s funny you say that because when we were first approached about doing this film I said the exact same thing, “well what the hell’s the big deal? Who cares?” I didn’t know anything about The Barnes Foundation at first so to me on the surface it was like “well what’s the big deal? We’ll move the paintings five miles away into Philadelphia where more people can see it.” I think where the problem lies is how it’s been done and the level of deception that’s taken place.
The fact of the matter is, as a tax payer of Philadelphia, all of a sudden after hearing one story of how the Barnes can’t work and needs all this help to bail it out and then when you dig deeper you ask “well I thought they were just supposed to save it? Now they’re moving it? How much is that going to cost? Why are we spending a hundred million dollars of taxpayer money to move this collection Downtown?” The reason given is “Well it’ll be great for the city of Philadelphia” but much like California having major budget problems, Philadelphia is broke as well. So why are we moving an art collection that doesn’t need to be moved and using tax money to do it?
IFQ: The sequence with dealer going through the Sotheby’s preview & deeming things “Barnes-worthy” or not, what would you guess Barnes’ criterion would be to pick out a painting that years later would be deemed so amazing by so many, even by established artists, so that he would not be persuaded by name alone?
DA: Again, everything was for the educational component for the school; so he was looking at them very differently than someone at Sotheby’s would look at them, which is parking money in an investment for the most part. That’s not to say that that is everyone’s sole intention but a lot of it is that way. Barnes had a particular educational mission in mind when looking at these paintings and ironically there are paintings in the collection that Barnes bought from Matisse just to show that a particular Matisse work was better than another one. So he was looking past just name recognition alone, that wasn’t the entire reason he put the collection together in the first place. To me that scene at Sotheby’s is more about how art has been commoditized and the way we look at art right now, which is as a big dollar sign. That’s certainly how the city of Philadelphia looks at it as well as the tourism community, i.e. such and such painting is worth five hundred million dollars.
IFQ: Finally, have there been any new developments at all in this situation since filming ended or even more so, since the movie has come about and shed new light on this case?
DA: In a perverse way, the film has accelerated the move exponentially. They got the green light to move the foundation in 2004 and now we’re in 2010 so for all those years they weren’t doing anything really. But now the film’s come out and since Toronto, their strategy has been to move forward and not look back. And also, the film has additionally brought a great amount of positive attention to The Barnes Foundation because a lot of people didn’t know about it before and now since seeing the film want to check it out. So in one way the fact that this film exists now and is being critical creates a dialogue that didn’t exist before and raise questions that now have to be answered. I don’t know if it’s too little or too late but at least people know the real story now and if they visit The Barnes Foundation they’ll see it with new eyes appreciating what it used to be versus what it has become.
To learn more about the film, go to www.ifcfilms.com and www.914pictures.com