How to Save the Barnes

CultureGrrl got herself in hot water with the Friends of the Barnes Foundation and Christopher Knight of the LA Times for suggesting yesterday that the $100-million authorization in Pennsylvania’s fiscal 2002 capital budget for design and construction of a new Barnes Foundation facility was being blown out of proportion. I took this position because (to my knowledge) no state money was actually given to the project at that time; the budget item merely indicated that Pennsylvania’s political powerhouses favored the move.
I still believe that, but let me make amends to the people who share my views on the larger issue by getting to the crux of it: The Barnes belongs in Merion, where its founder put it and stipulated (in his trust indenture) that it should perpetually remain. I believe that the majority of the art lovers and art professionals who have visited the Barnes from outside the Philadelphia area agree with this premise. (Do we need an audience survey?)
There is only one reason why Judge Stanley Ott of Montgomery County Orphans’ Court ruled that the Barnes could move to Philadelphia, despite Dr. Albert Barnes‘ clearly stated desire that it remain exactly as he left it: The judge bought the argument that moving it was the only way to save it.
In my NY Times Op-Ed piece, published before Judge Ott issued his ruling, I made several concrete suggestions as to how to raise “the $50 million that [Barnes] officials say is needed to maintain the galleries and programs in Merion. If these more modest proposals were adopted, the famously irascible founder might merely squirm, rather than roll over, in his grave.”
But now, desperate times call for desperate measures: While I may disagree with the Barnes’ hometown partisans on some details, I agree with their conviction that the Barnes needs an angel—a major donor (or group of benefactors) willing to fund the rescue.
With all the fundraising and planning that have already gone into the Philly Barnes, It may be too late to effectuate any change in course. But the legal and moral justification for violating Dr. Barnes’ vision evaporates if it can be saved in situ.
Admittedly, it would take much money and moral persuasion to get this done at this late date. But big-money collectors ought to be sympathetic to the concept of honoring the memory and intentions of one of their own. And, after all, didn’t we just learn that Steven Cohen has $139 million in spare change?