Christopher Knight: Barnes Move a “gut-wrenching tragedy”
I haven’t posted much (actually none at all) on the Barnes Foundation move mainly because of the overwhelming response to this spectacle by other bloggers and writers. However, if you’re still unsure of what exactly is going on in Pennsylvania (and I’m not just talking about art here), the LA Times’ Christopher Knight congratulates the Weekly Standard’s art critic, Lance Esplund, for what Knight calls a “splendid service” to readers for informing them on the tragedy of the Barnes move. Knight zeroes in on “Pennsylvania blockheads” specifically because, as he sees it, the move hinges on the tourist-trap misconception that crowds equal in-depth appreciation. Tough to argue with that conclusion.
About Christopher Knight and the Barnes. His writing on the Barnes goes far beyond the idea that “the move hinges on the tourist-trap misconception that crowds equal in-depth appreciation.” He has described in multiple ways what the Barnes is (e.g., “…the greatest American cultural monument in the first half of the 20th century.” “The Art of the Steal”) and what would be lost if it is dismantled. The “blockheads” just cannot quite grasp it all because they are blinded by the big dollar signs they see whenever the Barnes is mentioned. I’ve heard that Governor Rendell nearly wets himself just thinking about it. Not only the immense value of the collection, but what they imagine will be the revenue streams generated by the fake Barnes on the Parkway. What dopes! They could have saved about $300 million by letting it go bankrupt, then “giving” the collection to the PMA, but leaving it in its historic setting, thus preventing the lost value should the collection be removed from its “frame.” Something like the Cloisters to the Met. This solution would have been within the original terms of the Barnes Indenture of Trust. So, why didn’t the geniuses do that? For one thing, because they wanted permission to gut the Indenture and remake it and the By-Laws with Pew-approved provisions, such as the ability to loan works from the collection, etc.
But enough about that. I cannot tell you how pleased I am to find someone trained in art and the law. This is just great news.
I’m going to send you an article “Droit Patrimoine” about the Barnes that appeared in a law journal by Professor John Nivala. He describes the entire Barnes Merion complex as a unified work of art. So, with you expertise in copyright law, is there something that could be said about the ripping off of the “Barnes” brand? This is one of my pet peeves. If The Movers got permission to move the collection, why do they insist on trying to convince people that this is somehow fulfilling the mission of Albert Barnes by replicating his product in a cheap facsimile? Especially when the ticket price to get in will be around $20; whereas it should be free or really affordable. In other words, be honest about it. We have the money and influence and won the case. We get the prize. Nuts to Dr. Barnes! It’s the constant lies I just can’t stand.
Sorry I have just unloaded a lot of frustration and will leave it there. I will add your e-mail address to our mailing list for further updates on the case. I hope you will stay tuned. Evelyn Yaari, Friends of the Barnes Foundation
Thank you for linking to Mr. Knight’s comments about my essay in The Weekly Standard, but I am not “The Weekly Standar’s art critic.” I cover galleries and write about art for the Wall Street Journal and I am the senior art critic for the New York publication CityArts. Also, Mr. Knight calls my piece an “important service” not a “splendid service.”