Customer Reviews

The Art of the Steal

5 star:		(18)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

4.5 stars

This movie's weakness---its favoritism towards one side of the case---is also its strength, as that side is so obviously in the legal and moral right here. Barnes wanted his insanely fine modern art collection left as it was, to be used mainly as a school. He took much care in setting it up as a uniquely low key semi-museum that showed these works in the venue and manner that he chose, and he wanted it that way in perpetuity. Part of that desire was clearly to snub the idiots who ran the Philly Museum of Art, who derided his collection when they hadn't yet been informed---by people who actually knew something about art---that they should like this art.

Art Of The Steal is the tale of their heirs' obviously conspiratorial revenge against Barnes, for having been so right about both his collection and their apparently infinite greed, stupidity, and phoniness. Modern sleazeball heirs of older sleazeball fortunes, like the gangster-money Annenbergs and the hilariously/painfully Machiavellian Becky Rimel, merge here with newly minted sleazy politicians like Bernie Watson, "Judge" Ott, Ricky Glanton, and other patently paid off workers of the political system of Philly, which looks to be about as honest as Chicago's. They all see The Main Chance for their careers and bank accounts, and the best part is how they posit themselves as saviors of the public good while robbing the Barnes Foundation and Lincoln University blind. (And surprise! The 1998 audit that claimed the BF was broke, conveniently ignoring their endless ways to generate cash, was by Deloitte Touche, the slippery Brit accountants heavily linked to so many bailout scams and also to Sotheby's, the art world's greatest crooks.)

An examination of the wiki about the BF is telling; they've sanitized that sucker down to the ground, just as they no doubt paid off Ott and Watson and Steele with promises of endless campaign contributions and entree into the elite circles of botox-frozen phonies that dot the Philly low society we see on display here. Their machinations have taken decades to play out; they've been planning this for generations, clearly.

Because, really!? How DARE Barnes know SO much more about art than them, and be so clearly in the right then and now? How DARE he leave his priceless collection to a small, liberal black college? (Well, priceless until the Pews need to apply for charitable status and suddenly are conservators of the Barnes which they estimate at "above 25 to 30 billion dollars" in worth). How DARE he take away from the old Philly money (grubbers) what is rightfully theirs...except by any fair legal or moral reckoning?

But even the slant of this doc can't overstate the sheer greed and sneakiness and duplicity of these weasels. It boggles the mind, but it's just business as usual: politicians bought off by big money and everybody claiming it's for the public good. The way Glanton used the apparently moronic reporter Fleeson to his ends is quite something as well (though of course she was working for the Annenbergs' newspaper, and you just know Perelman had his grubby little paws in there too; he's a real pearl, no doubt). Everybody wants to be a "star" for a day or a week or whatever....but never thinks about how they'll appear to posterity. This film takes good care of that.

However, it's clear that the BF was played by some real masters. Glanton suddenly had tourist buses going into the Barnes neighborhood all week long in the '90s; he clearly wanted to make the 'hood mad at the traffic and thus give yet more reason for the place to be moved. They sadly played right into his hands; as said, this was a looong plan played out over decades. The gangster money of the Annenberg family has been waiting for 70 years to get revenge on Barnes' superior taste and intelligence, but in the end their transparent greed only confirms his superiority in every way. That they are pilfering Barnes' collection for their foundations, along with the Peeyew Your Money Smells folks and the Scamfasts, all in the name of "charity", is too perfect (I'd like to see a movie about where all their "charitable" money goes, speaking of corruption and buying favors; no doubt Ott, Watson, Steele and Glanton have enjoyed many perks from these coffers).

But the greatest irony is that this little work of art, this simple but so well done documentary, is quite likely to be how most of these people are remembered by the world at large as time goes by. And man, do they look sleazy. I had to crack up when they did a slow close-up of that Becky Rimel photo where she looks so hideous, like some sort of ugly sister of Medusa with a flabby neck and no chin and those beady, sneaky little eyes...you can just hear her whining to her friends over chardonnay at the club, "They used the worst picture they could find!" One can be sure there was no shortage; you can't scheme on this level without it showing up on your face, no matter how often the plastic surgeons stretch it over your head and down your spine towards the flickering, darting tail of Beelezebub.

But seriously, folks, this film really is well worth watching, not just for the entertainment but for the education of how great crimes are made to happen nowadays. The old saying, behind every great fortune is a great crime, is turned on its ear here, and this great crime has stolen a truly massive great fortune from a few schools, Barnes' and Lincoln, and used it to to enrich their own fortunes yet further. THIS is how the game is played: with a cast of plenty, anyone who wants more money and career being welcome if they can slither on in to the throne room, all the way to Ott, who must have quite a fun time looking himself in the mirror these days. "No standing"! Hoho! Perfectly good standing is exactly what this film, the case against this crime, and Barnes' will and original intent do have.

Yes, more people can see the paintings now, and that's the sole positive here, but by that logic every person on the globe should have full access to every painting ever painted, for free...and you know that ain't what these folks have in mind. Where's the money in it for them? The real issue is whether we have the right to have our lives' works preserved as we want them when we're gone, and whether our wills and trusts and wishes will be honored...and this film makes it clear that we really don't, and they probably won't. It's sad, as the Barnes is such a truly unique place, one of a kind, and now it'll just be another collection in the monolithic world of modern art. The exact opposite of what Barnes wanted...but what did he know? He only put the collection together and was friends with most of the artists. What rights does he have once he's gone? None, clearly.

And the true sign of crime here---the $100 million secretly tucked into the budget for moving the Barnes collection before it had even gone to court---well, there's no arguing that...especially since Ott was so obviously bought off. Make that man a Senator!

TAOTS clearly shows how the Barnes Foundation was concertedly made to falter by many people over the past few decades, all for personal gain of power and "prestige" and money, by a bunch of amazingly phony, soulless people. That they are on display in all their greed for posterity in this film is a work of art in itself, and one can feel the hand of old Barnes reaching out from beyond the grave to make the final point here: you can trust a few people, but sooner or later they die off and sooner than later sleazy, greedy folks will show up and grab all that they can plunder.

It sure is nice to see them get theirs here, though.
Sweet dreams, you weasels. THIS is your place in history.

I watched this documentary at home one day with nothing else to do. I had gone to the Barnes Foundation and thought the art was beyond believable. This documentary was so unbelievable, the people who stole this art, the politicians who let this happen - what is the story with Philadelphia? Your governor, your mayor let this happen - they were proud that they should steal this art, they think it is for the benefit of the masses.
Why would the will of an individual not be honored by law? Everything Dr. Barnes wanted is now being disregarded. It is a crime, I mean it is really a serious crime concerning billions of dollars of art that is being disregarded. What are your thoughts?

Can something be both fantastic and utterly disgusting at the same time? If so, then this movie is it. I knew about this situation somewhat peripherally, but having it all laid out in front of me as it is in this film, just ties all the pieces together to what I think must be the art heist of the century. All you need to do is follow the money in this film to see who the real theives are. By the time it's over it is abundantly clear just what happened to the Barne's Foundation and its fabulous collection. You will be especially appalled by the corporate greed that surrounds the telling of this story and the corporate whore who is at the center of it.

Is it a crime to be eccentric? That is basically what the entire string of thinking that promulgated by the high profile crowd in this film seems to say about Dr. Barnes. And frankly, that's the biggest lie I've ever heard. Does being eccentric invalidate a man's will? It certainly shouldn't, but that is what has been allowed to happen. The people of Philadelphia turned there backs on Dr. Albert Barnes once in his life when they were too small minded to share his forsight, but then when he was gone, they wanted to reap the spoils of his genius.

But at the same time, I think the neighbors of the Barnes Foundation should shoulder a great amount of the blame for what happened here too. Had they kept their big mouths shut in the first place, much of this whole thing could have been avoided. What really cracks me up is that the Barnes Foundation has most likely been there longer than any of its neighbors. They moved there knowing it was there... but alas.

Anyway, watch this film, think about what it says, and be just as enraged as I was by it. It is a travesty of grand proportions.

Let me answer the "who cares" part of the Amazon.com official review. The answer? Everyone "should" care. Why? Because this film shows that YOUR will does not matter if those with money and power want something. Dr. Barnes had left a significant amount of money behind to take care of (in Walter Annenberg's words) his "family" and he had left what he thought was an iron-clad will. He did not forsee the political ambitions of Mayor John F. Street (check your facts, Amazon) and Governor Rendell, nor the "philanthropic" ambitions of the Pew Charitable Trusts (a "public" entity $5.8 billion in assets and $360million in revenue ... why do they have access to public funds and special tax breaks at this financial level??)

So why should you care? Because it means -simply- that what you want to have done with your possessions after you pass does not amount to a hill of beans if outside political and financial interests stand in your way.

Another reason to see the film? It plays like a great thriller!

Today, I am an art historian who became one, in large part, because of the magnificent collection at the Barnes Foundation. I grew up a mile from the Barnes and went regularly with my family, paying only $1 or $2 per visit. We were by no means wealthy-- I lived on the "other side of the tracks"--truly West Philadelphia born and raised. I volunteered at the Barnes, briefly, in the early 1990s while in college, shortly after Mr. Glanton had begun to undo the intentions of Dr. Barnes. At the time, I sympathized with the impulse to make this amazing collection available to more people, but I was too young to understand the cost. Last week, I visited the Barnes for a nostalgic last look at the paintings that had become childhood friends. Now a college professor, I brought a large group of my financially-struggling students who each paid an admission price of $17 (The Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) in NY, which never had a mission to bring art to the poor, working classes as Barnes did, charges $20), plus $15/vehicle for parking. Upon entry, we encountered the store (a Glanton feature never countenanced by Barnes), in which is sold prints of various paintings from the collection (that were never, according to Barnes, supposed to be reproduced), which had traveled across the world for a tour at major museums in Paris, Tokyo, etc. under Glanton's supervision (a direct violation of Dr. Barnes' will). Members of my family snidely comment whenever we see this store, "Barnes is surely rolling over in his grave." As a Philadelphia native, I am thrilled to see the city's tourism market thrive. As an art historian, I am delighted to share this unparalleled collection with more people... But as a staunch believer in equality and fairness, I find the permanent relocation of the entire collection against the expressed (and legally binding) wishes of the founder troubling. If we are a society of laws, to whom and when do they apply? Those in favor of the move laud the purported outcome that the work will be more accessible. But at $17 per person, to whom does access apply?

A moving story of the greatest theft of private property by the state and its powerful allies in the civic and charitable community.

It is my dream to create an art which is filled with balance, purity and calmness, freed from a subject matter that is disconcerting or too attention-seeking. In my paintings, I wish to create a spiritual remedy, similar to a comfortable armchair which provides rest from physical expectation for the spiritually working, the businessman as well as the artist. ~ Henri Matisse

The dream of the artist Henri Matisse was embodied in the art collection of Dr. Albert C. Barnes and the Barnes Foundation. The Barnes Foundation (founded in 1922) located in Merion Pennsylvania about 5 miles outside Philadelphia is home (and I literally mean home) to some of the greatest art treasures in the modern world, Matisse, Renoir, Cézzane, Picaso, van Gogh, Monet to name just a few. It is estimated to be worth $25-$35 billion and considered the world's greatest collection of Impressionist, Post-Impressionist and Early Modern art. The collection includes such great works as The Portrait of the Postman Joseph Roulin (van Gogh), The Card Players (Cézanne) and The Joy of Life (Matisse). Dr. Barnes was one of the few collectors that viewed African Art not as primitive cultural artifacts but as works of art equal to the great works of Europe.

To think of Dr. Barnes as simply an art lover or collector does not do him justice. Dr. Barnes understood what Matisse was searching for in his dreams - balance, purity, calmness, a spiritual remedy for businessman as well as the artist. Dr. Barnes built his Foundation and displayed his art (and it was his art) in his house organized not by artist or subject but by the aesthetic and spiritual connection between the pieces. A van Gogh is hung next to a door lock, a piece of furniture or an African sculpture. The rooms are comfortable so one can pause for any length and contemplate the great works. The site is adorned with beautiful gardens and located in a serene neighborhood in Lower Merion, PA. Unfortunately, in 2012 it will all be gone. The Art Of The Steal is a riveting movie that shows how the state and its powerful allies in the art and charitable establishment trample the private property rights of the individual who in the words of the great artist Matisse created "the only sane place to see art in America."

Dr. Barnes himself is a classic example of the power of free markets. He was born into poverty and grew up in the low income neighborhoods around Philadelphia. He financed his college education by boxing professionally. He became a chemist and physician, invented and patented Argyrol, a substitute for Silver Nitrate, which, at the time was put in the eyes of every baby born in the USA to prevent venereal disease (an unintended consequence of war). He made his fortune in pharmaceuticals and used his fortune to gather the world's greatest collection of early and post-modern art. In 1923 he displayed seventy-five paintings including works of Soutine, Picasso, Chirico, and Matisse at the Philadelphia Academy of the Fine Arts.

The art and Dr. Barnes were excoriated by the Philadelphia art establishment, mainly the powerful Philadelphia Inquirer owned by Moses Annenberg (the father of Walter Annenberg who later in life established the "The Annenberg Foundation" one of the key players in the state confiscation of Dr. Barnes private property). His experience left him bitter and hostile towards the Philadelphia art establishment and the Philadelphia Inquirer. Another event had a great influence on Dr. Barnes decision to move the art out of Philadelphia. John G Johnson, an attorney to some of the most powerful men in the world including J.P. Morgan and Andrew Carnegie was the owner of a substantial art collection himself. He died on April 14, 1917 and donated his collection to the citizens of Philadelphia but directed that the art be preserved in his home on S. Broadstreet in Philadelphia. A few years later The Philadelphia Museum of Art opened a new neo-classical wing and needed art to fill it. By 1933 the museum came up with an "extraordinary reason" to move the collection. In 1921 the city of Philadelphia convinced the Orphan's Court (with the full backing of the Philadelphia Inquirer) that the paintings were threatened because Johnson's home was not fireproof. The home was condemned and the art moved to the museum under the stipulation the museum honor the remaining provisions of the will to keep the collection together (in 1989 the museum convinced the court to allow them to break up the collection for a "more unified presentation"). Barnes witnessed this in 1933 and vowed they (the Philadelphia art establishment, socialites and politicians of Philadelphia) would never get a hold of his collection - unfortunately Dr. Barnes underestimated the power of the state.

Dr. Barnes was killed in 1951 in a car crash (was it an accident?). This left the Barnes Foundation in the hands of Violette de Mazia who was Director of Education. During her life the Barnes Foundation stayed true to Dr. Barnes's Will and Testament, it stayed in Merion and was used primarily to educate. The public could view the collection but only during limited hours. Unfortunately, Barnes had no children so when Mrs. de Mazia died the Barnes Trust was put in the hands of Lincoln University a small, private all black college located in Pennsylvania and placed under the control of a 5-member board (as per Dr. Barnes will). Later Lincoln University became a state school that was chronically under funded. Yet, under the direction of Franklin Williams (the Lincoln Trustee), and an outside advisory board of art experts, the conditions of the Barnes Trust were honored. Around 1990 Williams died of cancer. Now the question becomes who appoints board members (or as Lenin put it "who whom"). This is when the wheels were set in motion by powerful forces in Philadelphia, the art establishment and the state of Pennsylvania to steal the collection from the Barnes Foundation "for the public good" and move it out of Merion to Philadelphia. At this point the movie plays out like a great Hollywood crime mystery with state institutions and individual politicians playing the villains. The movie chronicles in great detail the chain of events that led to a complete and utter disregard for private property rights. I am no Constitutional lawyer, but this may be the most extreme and egregious case in American history of state violation of private property rights.

The movie was directed and produced by Don Argott and Sheena Joyce. It was funded by Lenny Feinberg (a student of The Barnes Foundation and wealthy real estate investor). Mr Feinberg said he "stewed" when he heard the foundation's collection was being moved to Philadelphia which explicitly goes against Dr. Barnes 1951 will, which stated that "the foundation shall always be an educational institute, and the paintings shall never be removed, sold or loaned." Supporters formed "The Friends of the Barnes Foundation" in late 2004 after the ruling of the Montgomery County Orphan's Court granting permission for - but not mandating - the Board of Trustees of the Barnes Foundation to move the institution's art collection to the city of Philadelphia. One of the supporters, Nick Tinari (A Barnes attorney) is interviewed between shouts of "Philistines" and "have fun now - wait until it's your will" at people attending a museum event celebrating the move of the Barnes collection to Philadelphia. My only criticism of the movie is that it does not verbally make a stronger use of the constitutional argument for private property rights and often comes off as critical of capitalism when it shouldn't. After all, it was capitalism that provided the wealth Dr. Barnes used to purchase these great art pieces. But, this is a minor criticism. The story itself is a powerful reminder of the corruption of the state. From the abuse of civil rights laws (the powerful interests sued the neighbors of the Barnes Foundation using the Federal Ku Klux Klan Act), the unholy alliance between the state and powerful "public charitable" trusts headed by the Pew Foundation, power seeking individuals and corrupt politicians (including the "dishonorable" Governor Edward G. Rendell who does his pathetic best to defend the state). This is a story that every freedom loving Libertarian needs to know. There are so many lessons to be learned from this event that a short review simply cannot do justice to it. The movie is well done and the story is riveting. I can think of no better vehicle for teaching why the framers of the Constitution were so adamant that a free and just society respects private property rights and coercive tyrants don't. The dream of Matisse was realized in the art collected by a private individual and destroyed by the nightmare of state abuse.

The Art of the Steal is a riveting documentary that tells two sides of a tale: One is of The Barnes Foundation, an amazing school for artists (that also contained one of the most prized collections of art ever assembled) created by the quirky yet brilliant Albert C. Barnes. Side Two is of a group of politicians and power-mongers who saw the multi-billion dollar art collection as a prize to be garnered for the city of Philadelphia that could potentially reap a windfall of tourism if moved from its suburban home into the heart of the city itself, only a few miles away. As they say: location, location, location.

Barnes was snubbed in the early 20th Century by local Philadelphia art critics and society for having a collection of art that deemed primitive and unworthy. As a snub to them, he put together a trust that would guarantee (or so he thought) that his collection could never be owned, moved, or sold by these same so-called art experts who only used art as a means to gain entrance into rich parlour society.

Flash forward to the 1990's: Barnes is long dead, the collection is now estimated at being worth 2-3 billion (some claim even more than 30 billion), and has become a sought after prize by the same type of people who denounced it 70 years beforehand.

This very well-done documentary explains the process undergone to break the Barnes Trust so that this group of politicians could move the collection into a brand new building and be curated in a way that they sought fit.

Are these people evil? Well, at first glance, yes. Barnes never wanted to create an experience for the masses; he built an art school that used his paintings (Cezannes, Van Goghs, Matisses, Renoirs, etc.) as a teaching tool. They were hung in an intimate setting that enhanced them in a way that most museums could not recreate. Most museums are designed to get 'em in and get 'em out, reaping as much money as possible. To hear the politicians brag about being able to show off this collection to the masses makes the stomach churn.

View this film for yourself; the soundtrack heightens the dramatic tension. The camera angles and editing make it much more than just a dry documentary. The passions of those interviewed (and those who chose not to be interviewed) are palpable. Other than a trailer and a few promos, there are no extras, but this is the type of film that needs no extras.

For those wanting to experience The Barnes collection as it was meant to be experienced, time is running out. As of January 2011, his original building and collection will be closed so that the paintings can be moved to their new "McMuseum" near the Philadelphia Museum of Art.

After seeing this movie, one hopes that there will be an eleventh hour of salvation.

The documentary follows the progress, or the devolution, of the demise of the Barnes Collection in Philadelphia's suburb where it was housed for decades after Dr. Barnes' death.
Tracking the water torture style slow erosion of the will and trust of Dr. Barnes until the collection is finally moved into the City of Philadelphia under new auspices in another museum,
the story touches on the big money, egos, and slippery tactics of those who thought "it best" for the public and the collection that it be rehoused and rehung. The scariest part of the doc is the message that a person's wishes, trusts, wills and most solidly written documents can be abrogated if there is enough moxie in the money. The next generation of art lovers will probably not even worry about what Dr. Barnes wanted to do with his collection. It is a warning to those who think our system of justice will solidly enforce our wills. The Art of the Steal

"The best laid plans of mice and men, often time go wrong",
said the famous Scottish poet Robert Burns.

Much the same language could be used to describe the sad story of the Barnes Foundation. This documentary film chronologies the history of "The Barns" (which was founded by the eccentric multi-millionaire pharmaceutical manufacture Dr. Albert C. Barnes) and its serendipitous ownership of over $35 Billion (WOW!) dollars of post-impressionist art - by some measurement more than exists within the City of Paris.

The film seeks to portray all of the dark forces of "the establishment", who appeared to have engaged in a coordinated and self-serving attack to divert the Foundation from its stated purposes and into a more "conventional art experience" - culminating in the relocation of the collection into the art district of the City of Philadelphia. The film frequently states that Dr, Barnes consulting with "... the best attorneys to draw up his will ..." (as well as deed of trust for his art foundation). The film explains in great detail how this governing trust instrument was systemically circumvented, ignored, overridden, watered down and vacated to the point of irrelevancy.

However, after view the DVD several times, I began to feel that this treasure trove of art was essentially doomed from its inception (in my option); given my understanding of tax, and not-for-profit organizational operations. There is an old proverb that states, "Revenge is a dish best served cold". Dr Barnes' attempt to "spite" the conventional world of art and culture, which had previously belittled him (personally) and his art collection; simply set in motion powerful forces that, over time, allied against the foundation and ultimately undermined its functionality.

Midway through the film, one of the interviewees makes a comments (to the effect) "about what might have been"; if the Foundation had included proper oversight and foresight. In my view this statement summarizes the essence and the great sadness of this documentary film: THE ART OF THE STEAL. While this magnificent collection will now be seen and appreciated by a greater potion of the general public; the uniqueness of the Barnes Collection has been lost forever.

After watching this I went to the Friends of the Barnes web page because I was concerned by how one sided it was. Not because I felt that it didn't represent the story quite well, but my concern was that the opposing side wasn't given a fair chance to explain this travesty. Well to my dismay, the players on the side of the "winners" did not choose to comment, short of saying it was good for philadelphia....

I would say so... if Paris were forced to sell to Philadelphia the Eiffel Tower, it would be good for philadelphia... lol

The film showcased other examples of how The Barnes is not first collection stolen by big donors and my feeling not the last. If you want to see a disgusting use of power, corruption and greed. Watch this movie. My guess is that it will be good for the New Barnes as most people will want to see the new place... The memories of the public is short... the story will fade away quickly enough and pretty soon it will be a distant memory of a few former students and historians.