Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader is distressed to hear that a judge has ruled that the famous Barnes Collection may be moved to downtown Philadelphia.
Here is an LATimes article on the debate about the move.
And while your Maximum Leader is dumping links… Here is a good one from the Cranky Professor.
Your Maximum Leader has been following the contraversy concerning the Barnes Collection for a number of months now. To boil it down for minions who just don’t know what the hell your Maximum Leader is talking about (and don’t care to click through on the links) here are the critical issues. Albert C. Barnes established a foundation upon his death, the purpose of which was to preserve his collection of art in situ at his estate. The collection and estate were to become a school for artists. Fast forward many years and it appears that the trustees of the Barnes Foundation feel that the Foundation doesn’t have enough money to keep operating. The trustees propose moving some of the collection to museums in downtown Philly (a few miles away).
The key disputes are these: did the Trustees of the Foundation really try to come up with some method of funding that didn’t require the movement of some of the collection downtown? and is it legal to do so since moving the collection is directly at odds with the primary purpose of the Foundation?
From the perspective of the law, it seems that the second question is answered. The collection (or parts of the collection) can be moved. The first question remains unanswered. Your Maximum Leader hasn’t read anything that seems to say with any authority that the Trustees did more that give a quick examination to other options before deciding to just go with a move to Philly.
The underlying issue, which is the one that concerns your Maximum Leader. What is the purpose of establishing a foundation (like the Barnes) if at some point down the road the trustees have the ability to undo that which the original donor sought not to have undone?
Your Maximum Leader believes that here will be two major results of the Barnes decisions (should they be upheld on appeal). The first is that collectors will decide that out-right bequests of art to musuems or universities along with money to try and help out with the maintenance of the collection. But these bequest will probably not situplate that the collections be displayed in a particular fashion or be kept together.
NB: Your Maximum Leader has always been fascinated by how museums sell off parts of their collections to acquire new additions to their collections. He is intrigued by who the big Muesum Directors use their positions to fashion musuem collections in their image… But that is likely a subject for a later post.
The second possible result of the Barnes decisions is that private collections will just remain private or be liquidated upon the death of the collector. Why bother trying to preserve your collection through a fancy endowed foundation if trustees down the road (with no connection to the original collector generally) decide to fight the terms of the foundation because they seem out-of-date or troublesome. While sell-offs may in the end be a boon to museums (they could acquire peices in which they are interested without being saddled by others they are not); they will surely be a boon to private collectors who have no intention of displaying their collections ever.
It is a tough position to be in if you are a wealthy collector.
In other collection news, the Natick (Mass) historical society just sold the oldest known copy of The Scarlett Letter for over $500,000. Why? Because keeping the document wasn’t part of their mission. (Which is to keep artifacts concerning the town’s history & heritage.)
Carry on.
