(photo credit Tom Crane Photography, Inc.)
Philadelphia Inquirer’s Culture writer Peter Dobrin broke the news last night that Aileen Roberts (Comcast) and Joseph Neubauer (Aramark Corporation) were the unanimous choices for The Philadelphia Award.
No reflection on Mr. Dobrin, but this news is about as surprising as time marching on.
We won’t bore you with the multiple layers of connections among Philly-stines that wormed their way into the Barnes and are ripping it apart. Just to mention that the Chair of the "Independence" Foundation that gives "The Philadelphia Award," is Phyllis W. Beck, former legal counsel for the Barnes Foundation. And Comcast executive David Cohen heads the Barnes Corporate Council. All very cozy in Philadelphia, as usual.
The award announcement does include a couple of real gems. Joe Neubauer is given credit for raising $150 million for the new building and more than $50 million for the endowment. Wonder what happened to Rebecca Rimel of Pew, who used to get credit for raising the big bucks?
But wait a second. let's remember that about $50 million for the pork barrel project is from Pennsylvania TAXPAYERS, part of the 2002 $107 million appropriation put in place when former state Senator for Philadelphia Vincent Fumo was the head of the Appropriations Committee. He's in jail now.
Then there are Aileen Roberts’ self-serving comments about the building on the Parkway, including “…it takes your breath away.” But gee, she doesn’t explain why. According to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung piece, “The Revenge of the Rich” "The 'Barnes on the Freeway' is going to look like a cross between a multiplex cinema and an upside-down milk carton.”
Having seen it, we can tell you that it really is breathtaking, but not in a good way; rather in a "what were they thinking?!" way.
Having seen it, we can tell you that it really is breathtaking, but not in a good way; rather in a "what were they thinking?!" way.
But on the occasion of the “honors” bestowed within the clique known as true Philly-stines, let’s turn to Dr. Albert C. Barnes and his words at the dedication of the Barnes Foundation in Merion on March 19, 1925:
“The Foundation is an educational institution and not an entertainment bureau for ‘aesthetes.’ Anybody serious can link up with us, but nobody is rich enough or prominent enough to get in with us on those qualities [alone].“
(Reference taken from Art, education & African American culture by Mary Ann Meyers)
Posts
I found the documentary well made, albeit extremely one-sided. Even so, I didn’t buy into it's premise. Barnes was as much of a snob as the critics who had snubbed his collection. He took his toys home in a huff after one public display and negative reviews. He was motivated by a wounded ego (lets face it most art collectors amass for their egos as well as the pleasure of the art.) To hoard so much incredible art from the world was petty and selfish, and some say he exploited the artists, paying them little to nothing for their works (6 dollars for an early Picasso?). Sure he owned it, but most owners of famous artists’ works loan them to museums on a regular basis. The "Friends of the Barnes" also came across to me as elitist snobs who wanted the Barnes School/museum all to themselves, their private neighborhood treasure, after all, only THEY had the intellectual sophistication to appreciate it. Just like Barnes and his school of smug art students.
ReplyDeleteTheir comments about these outsiders coming in--"here's a bus from Toronto"--smacked of looking down on those who didn't live in their wealthy neighborhood. Reading the review below from a former member of the "Friends" gives insight and credence to my own impression from the film. Apparently they did everything they could to stop anyone from coming in to see this incredible collection of art, even when the foundation tried to have art lovers shuttled in to avoid the busses and cars. These same people protested and sued when the foundation decided to move the art to the city where others could see the collection and bring in enough revenue for its care. To me, the ulterior motivations and elitism of everyone in this debacle was wrong, from Barnes, to the Friends, to Lincoln U, to the illegal chicanery of Philadelphia power brokers and the Annenberg/Pew Foundations. A perfect example of "what you fear you create." When all the fools are dead and gone, hopefully the art will live on.
Whatever the motivations of Mr. Barnes, the fact remains that it belonged to him and he left specific instructions for how it was to be treated. That is the point of leaving a will. There will always be those who use state power to corrupt, but it seems that these people who were in a trusted position abused not only the Foundation but also the taxpayers.
DeleteI have to agree with Daoud. Dr. Barnes character flaws are mentioned in the movie, but have nothing to do with the fact that the art belonged to him, and neither does the price he paid. It's a shame that his will for his property was ignored for profit. Just because you have obtained something beautiful, does not give the public the right to see it. This is all about $. It's sad when you think about it.
ReplyDelete