There is no doubt that this was a slanted documentary. However, the film was quite explicit about the points of his will that had been violated which you mention. There was a whole section that focused on which Board director made the decision to open it 5 days a week and send the collection on tour. Those violations of the will’s stipulations were a prelude to the rest of it…but that doesn’t make the rest of it right. And while we won’t ever know what Barnes would have thought about our changed world and making his collection more accessible to the Everyman’s, I don’t think he’d have been pleased by the underhanded political wrangling that made that happen.

thanks for the comments!

I grew up just around the corner from the Barnes Foundation, and visited it many times in my youth. I later (coincidentally) ended up buying a house and starting a family in Philadelphia where I can now walk to the new proposed location for the Barnes in under 10 minutes.

I feel this documentary was very misinformative.

First, Albert Barnes was very honorable man. He dedicated his life to exposing & educating the underprivileged about art. However – like all of us – he was only human. He had a personal vendetta against the art society of Philadelphia at the time, feeling as though they snubbed him because of his blue collar upbringing and his very eccentric views of art.

His will (among other things) stated a few interesting points that were not covered much in this film. First, he stipulated that the museum would only be open 2 days a week. Second, the art was never to leave the premises on loan or otherwise. Times have changed since his death over 50 years ago. First, both those wishes expressed in Barnes will have been violated. It’s no longer free either.

If you where to visit Lower Merion today… you would see that it is an OBSCENELY wealthy area just outside of the city limits. The opulence on one side of the city line is an embarrassing contrast to the disparity on the other. When Philadelphia institute a city wage tax in the 60’s (for the common good) many of its more wealthy residents moved just outside of the city to escape having to yield any of their good fortune to those less fortunate.

I don’t believe wealthy people have the right to “take it with them”. Nor do I believe that if Albert Barnes were alive today he would disagree to the concept of making his collection more accessible.

Here is an extreme example: Before he died, lets say that Albert Barnes decided to burn his collection in a giant heap in his yard to spite the art world. Would he have the right to? Sure. Would it be the right thing to do? of course not.