MegaBarnes As a Philly Tourist Magnet, Not a Connoisseur’s Creation

When I recently provided you with a report on the plans for the new Philadelphia Barnes Foundation, I didn’t tell you what I thought of those plans. I was, and still am, grateful to Derek Gillman for giving me his time and this thoughts—especially since I have repeatedly expressed my negative views on the move (here in CultureGrrl; and here on the NY Times Op-Ed page).
But now it’s gloves-off time, especially in light of Judith Dobrzynski‘s revealing profile in Friday’s Wall Street Journal of one of the prime movers behind the Barnes move, Rebecca Rimel, president of the Pew Charitable Trusts. That Philly-based charity has spearheaded the $200-million fundraising campaign for the new Barnes and kicked in $20 million of its own money. (The profile is here if you’re a WSJ online subscriber.)
When I recently interviewed Gillman, the Barnes’ executive director and president, I mentioned the fact that a fraction of the $150 million already raised for the Barnes move would easily give it the financial wherewithal to stay in Merion, where founder Albert Barnes installed it and where so many art lovers strongly feel it should remain. Gillman himself, long before he came to the Barnes, had publicly observed that the strong-willed collector was “probably rotating in his grave” over plans to uproot his painstakingly conceived creation.
But Gillman asserted that the donors who gave money for the Philadelphia move would not have given money to keep the Barnes in the nearby suburb of Merion: “They support the project because they think the access is really important,” he said. Rimel told Dobrzynski that Philadelphia was the preferred venue because Dr. Barnes wanted his collection to be accessible to “plain folk.”
But the WSJ article makes it abundantly clear that the folk Rimel most wants to attract to the Barnes are not the indigent locals but the tourist folk—free spenders who will help give her adopted city a needed economic boost. Rimel’s objectives, backed by big bucks and political support, are supplanting Barnes’ objectives: Aside from wanting his creation to remain as he left it, Barnes famously detested the Philadelphia establishment.
Dobrzynski writes:
Rimel sees culture as one way the City of Brotherly Love, which has slowly been rising from its beaten-down past, will thrive again. “Philadelphia will keep its nose up if it has more product [emphasis added] to offer,” she says. She envisions a day when art-lovers will plan visits to Philadelphia and make side trips to New York, instead of vice versa.
“Product” is, of course, an unfortunate word, but it reveals how Rimel and so many civic and corporate movers-and-shakers regard culture. The Barnes’ accessibility problem, if there is one, would best be solved by another of Rimel’s pet projects—a subsidized “Arts Train.” The cultural transport she envisions would “offer visitors to Philadelphia amenities like hors d’oeuvres while they traveled to a package of cultural activities for, say, $100,” Dobrzynski reports. But if this shuttle is going to be subsidized, why not dump the hors d’oeuvres and just provide some convenient low-cost transportation, in the best interests of the “plain folk”?
Any move of the Barnes would violate the founder’s clearly expressed intentions. Sufficient money to keep it where it is could still be, and should be, raised. For starters, the board should be expanded to the 15 allowed by the courts, to give the Barnes more fundraising power. Long after the permission to expand was granted, the number of trustees still stands at 12. Rimel notes that Barnes’ written instructions allow for violation of his own express wishes “if all else fails.” But the people who want it in Philly have allowed it to fail, rather than backing its continuation in situ.
I still haven’t told you what’s objectionable about the specific plans for the new facility: COMING SOON.