Anonymous Blogback on the Philadelphia Eakins Saga

A staff member at the National Gallery of Art, who deals with exhibitions and collections, comments on More Thoughts on “Gross Clinic”:
I work at the National Gallery of Art and I have to say I am thrilled that our bid for the Eakins was blocked. Here’s why:
First, we were planning to spend a large chunk of our acquisition funds for a painting that we would not even entirely own.
Second, to partner up with [Alice] Walton, in my book, is just not a good idea. A museum in Bentonville is going to be the equivalent (although probably not in style or scope and minus the urban city nearby) to the Barnes Foundation: Quite simply, I believe very few people will make an effort to travel for the museum.
Walton does not seem to care what civic pride she trounces to get what she wants. I have to wonder, will each purchase she makes be as controversial as the Eakins and the Durand? If so, we’re in for a wild ride. And the actions of [John] Wilmerding and Walton seem like a major conflict of interest. Who’s protecting whom and who’s helping whom?
One final beef with this whole situation (and this is where I think we differ slightly): Having this massive work go to the the NGA and Bentonville would have required much traveling and shifting locations for the painting. In your last column, you mentioned the absurdity of the work having to shuffle back and forth between two locations in Philly, yet try having to shuffle it between DC and Arkansas! In Philly, you have a short distance to go and the professional resources to get it there.