Yeah, subby, moving a museum's collection from one building to another, making it more accessible to the public is totally the same thing as stealing it.

Wyrdbrthr: Yeah, subby, moving a museum's collection from one building to another, making it more accessible to the public is totally the same thing as stealing it.

It was theft, plain and simple.

Wyrdbrthr: Yeah, subby, moving a museum's collection from one building to another, making it more accessible to the public is totally the same thing as stealing it.

The Barnes Foundation was NOT a museum.

Marcus Aurelius: Wyrdbrthr: Yeah, subby, moving a museum's collection from one building to another, making it more accessible to the public is totally the same thing as stealing it.

The Barnes Foundation was NOT a museum.

Except that it was in the public trust since the 90's when the foundation went bankrupt due to the BoT's mismanagement and had to be bailed out by the state, twice, and received public funds. If it looks like a museum and quacks like a museum, it's going to be treated like one. Calling it theft is just the shrill hyperbole of the trustees.

That, and the fact that the terms of Barnes' own will was causing irreparable damage to the art itself, like putting van gogh's in direct sunlight. The new building is better for the art, as well as the public.

Put down that bong,subby. Seriously.

Marcus Aurelius: Wyrdbrthr: Yeah, subby, moving a museum's collection from one building to another, making it more accessible to the public is totally the same thing as stealing it.

The Barnes Foundation was NOT a museum.

And seriously? The art of the steal was a joke. Everyone in the art world knew it was a skewed documentary focused on controversy over substance. Even Culturegrrl, the most rabid of the museum blogs thought it went over the top.

even NPR called Argott out: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/sto ry.php?storyId=124082706

More summaries here.

""No one seeing 'The Art of the Steal' will be left wondering where the filmmakers' sympathies are"" http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/21/movi es/21barnes.html?_r=1

"[T]he new Barnes will serve as a reminder that it is possible to pay tribute to the past without surrendering to it."http://www.theartnewspaper.com/art icles/The-battle's-over:-but-doe s-the-new-Barnes-work?/26496

Call it what you want, but it's not a theft. If you want to talk the biggest art heist in history, maybe check out the Gardner Museum.

Im confused...

I had mixed feelings about the move but, I guess since I was never able to book a Barnes Museum tour, it's probably for the best.

The Philadelphia Museum is probably one of my top three even without the addition of the Barnes collection. ROADTRIP!

Wyrdbrthr: Marcus Aurelius: Wyrdbrthr: Yeah, subby, moving a museum's collection from one building to another, making it more accessible to the public is totally the same thing as stealing it.

The Barnes Foundation was NOT a museum.

And seriously? The art of the steal was a joke. Everyone in the art world knew it was a skewed documentary focused on controversy over substance. Even Culturegrrl, the most rabid of the museum blogs thought it went over the top.

even NPR called Argott out: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/sto ry.php?storyId=124082706

More summaries here.

""No one seeing 'The Art of the Steal' will be left wondering where the filmmakers' sympathies are"" http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/21/movi es/21barnes.html?_r=1

"[T]he new Barnes will serve as a reminder that it is possible to pay tribute to the past without surrendering to it."http://www.theartnewspaper.com/art icles/The-battle's-over:-but-doe s-the-new-Barnes-work?/26496

Call it what you want, but it's not a theft. If you want to talk the biggest art heist in history, maybe check out the Gardner Museum.

Everyone else is falling all over themselves about how wonderful it was to steal $25 billion in artwork from a black college, so I don't see how giving a more realistic prespective is anything but balanced. The artwork belonged to Barnes, and he set up his foundation as a big "fark you" to the Philly art crowd. Who now controls the collection.

Theft, plain and simple.

brap: I had mixed feelings about the move but, I guess since I was never able to book a Barnes Museum tour, it's probably for the best.

The Philadelphia Museum is probably one of my top three even without the addition of the Barnes collection. ROADTRIP!

And the Rodin museum is open again. It's a good time for art in Philly.

xynix: Im confused...

You're not the only one. That article was horribly written.

Man describes his role in the biggest art theft in history



// How about scaling that back a bit? Maybe the biggest theft of art in suburban Philly?

notmtwain: Man describes his role in the biggest art theft in history

[www.archives.gov image 440x298]

// How about scaling that back a bit? Maybe the biggest theft of art in suburban Philly?

Nope. Philly, plain and simple does not deserve it. Even if they found a way to legally confiscate it.

Art of the steal is a great doc

Less an art theft than an "FU, dead guy, the terms of your trust are ridiculously stupid."

Last time I was at that museum, they kicked me out for talking on my phone in the children's section.

Art sucks.

Someone wanna give those of us who don't have our short-and-curlies all tied in big-ass knot an explanation as to WTF Subby's on about? How is moving an art installation from a (from what I've gathered here) bankrupt foundation into a museum "theft"?

you_idiot: Art sucks.

If by art, you mean this article and thread: I could not agree more

Barnes??? hell I thought someone found the amber room

Is this some kind of Philly inside joke that everyone in the nation is supposed to "get"?

Weidbrewer: Someone wanna give those of us who don't have our short-and-curlies all tied in big-ass knot an explanation as to WTF Subby's on about? How is moving an art installation from a (from what I've gathered here) bankrupt foundation into a museum "theft"?

1st world problems

I'm as open-minded as the next guy but on the list of things I/we should give a shiat about this just comes in near the bottom for me. I just can't summon up enough impotent rage about this.

Weidbrewer: Someone wanna give those of us who don't have our short-and-curlies all tied in big-ass knot an explanation as to WTF Subby's on about? How is moving an art installation from a (from what I've gathered here) bankrupt foundation into a museum "theft"?

A wealthy man bought massive amounts of artwork and objects of cultural/historical interest, but his will included various clauses that restricted the accessibility of his collection to a handful of art students every year, along with restrictions on how to take care of the collection and find funding for all costs related to the collection. The trustees could not agree on how to rectify the situation (some saying to let the collection remain where it was in storage with very limited public access, the others saying to move it to a public museum for all the public to see), and lawsuits started flying.

Marcus Aurelius: Wyrdbrthr: Yeah, subby, moving a museum's collection from one building to another, making it more accessible to the public is totally the same thing as stealing it.

It was theft, plain and simple.

No, it was a bit more complex than what you and the documentarian make it out to be. What is plain and simple is that the Amazon Review needs to be tweaked just a bit; John Street is the Philly mayor who should have been maligned in the review, not John F. Scott.

stonicus: Last time I was at that museum, they kicked me out for talking on my phone in the children's section.

No, they kicked you out for pretending to talk on your phone so you had anb "excuse" to hang out in the children's section...

J/K, I just couldn't pass it up. ;-)

rebelyell2006: Weidbrewer: Someone wanna give those of us who don't have our short-and-curlies all tied in big-ass knot an explanation as to WTF Subby's on about? How is moving an art installation from a (from what I've gathered here) bankrupt foundation into a museum "theft"?

A wealthy man bought massive amounts of artwork and objects of cultural/historical interest, but his will included various clauses that restricted the accessibility of his collection to a handful of art students every year, along with restrictions on how to take care of the collection and find funding for all costs related to the collection. The trustees could not agree on how to rectify the situation (some saying to let the collection remain where it was in storage with very limited public access, the others saying to move it to a public museum for all the public to see), and lawsuits started flying.

1/10

thecpt: rebelyell2006: Weidbrewer: Someone wanna give those of us who don't have our short-and-curlies all tied in big-ass knot an explanation as to WTF Subby's on about? How is moving an art installation from a (from what I've gathered here) bankrupt foundation into a museum "theft"?

A wealthy man bought massive amounts of artwork and objects of cultural/historical interest, but his will included various clauses that restricted the accessibility of his collection to a handful of art students every year, along with restrictions on how to take care of the collection and find funding for all costs related to the collection. The trustees could not agree on how to rectify the situation (some saying to let the collection remain where it was in storage with very limited public access, the others saying to move it to a public museum for all the public to see), and lawsuits started flying.

1/10

No, 1/1. I'm not typing up nine more posts on the subject.

Wyrdbrthr: Marcus Aurelius: Wyrdbrthr: Yeah, subby, moving a museum's collection from one building to another, making it more accessible to the public is totally the same thing as stealing it.

The Barnes Foundation was NOT a museum.

Except that it was in the public trust since the 90's when the foundation went bankrupt due to the BoT's mismanagement and had to be bailed out by the state, twice, and received public funds. If it looks like a museum and quacks like a museum, it's going to be treated like one. Calling it theft is just the shrill hyperbole of the trustees.

That, and the fact that the terms of Barnes' own will was causing irreparable damage to the art itself, like putting van gogh's in direct sunlight. The new building is better for the art, as well as the public.

So you aren't familiar with the concept of private property I take it?

Weidbrewer: Someone wanna give those of us who don't have our short-and-curlies all tied in big-ass knot an explanation as to WTF Subby's on about? How is moving an art installation from a (from what I've gathered here) bankrupt foundation into a museum "theft"?

The foundation was set up to explicitly keep the collection out of the hands of the Philadelphia art crowd. Via a series of manufactured crises, the board was loaded up with people looking to get their grubby mitts on the collection. Which is now firmly under the control of the Philadelphia art crowd.

lordaction: Wyrdbrthr: Marcus Aurelius: Wyrdbrthr: Yeah, subby, moving a museum's collection from one building to another, making it more accessible to the public is totally the same thing as stealing it.

The Barnes Foundation was NOT a museum.

Except that it was in the public trust since the 90's when the foundation went bankrupt due to the BoT's mismanagement and had to be bailed out by the state, twice, and received public funds. If it looks like a museum and quacks like a museum, it's going to be treated like one. Calling it theft is just the shrill hyperbole of the trustees.

That, and the fact that the terms of Barnes' own will was causing irreparable damage to the art itself, like putting van gogh's in direct sunlight. The new building is better for the art, as well as the public.

So you aren't familiar with the concept of private property I take it?

A lot of people seem to miss that point entirely.

thecpt: 1/10

I dunno...from a non-biased point of view, that seemed to sum up the situation rather well to show both sides.

Marcus Aurelius: Weidbrewer: Someone wanna give those of us who don't have our short-and-curlies all tied in big-ass knot an explanation as to WTF Subby's on about? How is moving an art installation from a (from what I've gathered here) bankrupt foundation into a museum "theft"?

The foundation was set up to explicitly keep the collection out of the hands of the Philadelphia art crowd. Via a series of manufactured crises, the board was loaded up with people looking to get their grubby mitts on the collection. Which is now firmly under the control of the Philadelphia art crowd.

And for those who don't understand why someone would want to keep it out of their hands, Philly was a complete dick to this guy. He had Van Gogh before it was known as a gold standard of the Impressionist movement, and Philly told him what he had wasn't "good" art. In order to see the collection, all you had to do was call and ask.

notmtwain: Man describes his role in the biggest art theft in history

[www.archives.gov image 440x298]

// How about scaling that back a bit? Maybe the biggest theft of art in suburban Philly?

Not even close.

Crap. I thought they found someone who robbed the Gardner Museum.

Blackneto: Crap. I thought they found someone who robbed the Gardner Museum.

Came here to say this.

Wanna talk art theft? These guys didn't use lawyers, they used armored divisions.

lordaction: Wyrdbrthr: Marcus Aurelius: Wyrdbrthr: Yeah, subby, moving a museum's collection from one building to another, making it more accessible to the public is totally the same thing as stealing it.

The Barnes Foundation was NOT a museum.

Except that it was in the public trust since the 90's when the foundation went bankrupt due to the BoT's mismanagement and had to be bailed out by the state, twice, and received public funds. If it looks like a museum and quacks like a museum, it's going to be treated like one. Calling it theft is just the shrill hyperbole of the trustees.

That, and the fact that the terms of Barnes' own will was causing irreparable damage to the art itself, like putting van gogh's in direct sunlight. The new building is better for the art, as well as the public.

So you aren't familiar with the concept of private property I take it?

I'm familiar with it. Are you familiar with incompetence? Because that's what caused the problem with the Barnes in the first place- the Barnes trustees mismanaged the foundation's investments so badly it had to get bailed out by the state, and they agreed to the original move back in the 90's. It's not art theft, and calling it that minimizes the actual art theft that occurs on a daily basis.

One of the biggest collections of modernist and impressionist art is now open to the public in a gigantic facility that will be able to take care of the art that was being destroyed in the old building that housed it, because it was impossible to put in any modern conservation facilities in it. Pardon me if I don't shed a tear for the terms of Barnes' old will, which would have led to the art's eventual destruction.

Did they steal nazi treasure from a sunken u boat?

Is this some big hipster tragedy I'm supposed to show concern about??

First I've heard of any of this. TFH confused me once I read TFA, but I think I've got the basic gist of it now. Thanks, FARK!

the board was loaded up with people looking to get their grubby mitts on the collection

Closer to me there was a man who willed his oceanfront property to help the children of his town. Revenue from his estate was to be used for education. This plan worked for a few centuries. In recent decades the board was loaded with people who wanted some of that oceanfront property. They rented valuable land to themselves and their friends at below market rate. Residents found out about this. Threats were made to charge market rent (10-100 times higher). Board members and renters had a friendly legal dispute in order to get an enforceable settlement. The settlement was to sell the land outright for below market value. So treat anybody who lives in Little Neck, Ipswich, Mass. as a thief.

Umfufu: Is this some big hipster tragedy I'm supposed to show concern about??

Irony...overload...aack. *thud*

Marcus Aurelius: lordaction: Wyrdbrthr: Marcus Aurelius: Wyrdbrthr: Yeah, subby, moving a museum's collection from one building to another, making it more accessible to the public is totally the same thing as stealing it.

The Barnes Foundation was NOT a museum.

Except that it was in the public trust since the 90's when the foundation went bankrupt due to the BoT's mismanagement and had to be bailed out by the state, twice, and received public funds. If it looks like a museum and quacks like a museum, it's going to be treated like one. Calling it theft is just the shrill hyperbole of the trustees.

That, and the fact that the terms of Barnes' own will was causing irreparable damage to the art itself, like putting van gogh's in direct sunlight. The new building is better for the art, as well as the public.

So you aren't familiar with the concept of private property I take it?

A lot of people seem to miss that point entirely.

Yep, and the Philly Inquirer articles (up to the point that management changed) make this point very clear. This was political and legal trickery at it's finest, and while I do think that the move was the best thing for the collection, I'm still boggled by the mental gymnastics provided in the legal opinion.

Wyrdbrthr: lordaction: Wyrdbrthr: Marcus Aurelius: Wyrdbrthr: Yeah, subby, moving a museum's collection from one building to another, making it more accessible to the public is totally the same thing as stealing it.

The Barnes Foundation was NOT a museum.

Except that it was in the public trust since the 90's when the foundation went bankrupt due to the BoT's mismanagement and had to be bailed out by the state, twice, and received public funds. If it looks like a museum and quacks like a museum, it's going to be treated like one. Calling it theft is just the shrill hyperbole of the trustees.

That, and the fact that the terms of Barnes' own will was causing irreparable damage to the art itself, like putting van gogh's in direct sunlight. The new building is better for the art, as well as the public.

So you aren't familiar with the concept of private property I take it?

I'm familiar with it. Are you familiar with incompetence? Because that's what caused the problem with the Barnes in the first place- the Barnes trustees mismanaged the foundation's investments so badly it had to get bailed out by the state, and they agreed to the original move back in the 90's. It's not art theft, and calling it that minimizes the actual art theft that occurs on a daily basis.

One of the biggest collections of modernist and impressionist art is now open to the public in a gigantic facility that will be able to take care of the art that was being destroyed in the old building that housed it, because it was impossible to put in any modern conservation facilities in it. Pardon me if I don't shed a tear for the terms of Barnes' old will, which would have led to the art's eventual destruction.

All the crises were purely manufactured with the express intention of breaking Barne's will. The City of Philadelphia had a hard-on for the collection, and they farked over Albert's last wished to get their grubby paws on it. A picture was catching sunlight? Albert says fark you AND the horse you rode in on.

Marcus Aurelius: Wyrdbrthr: lordaction: Wyrdbrthr: Marcus Aurelius: Wyrdbrthr: Yeah, subby, moving a museum's collection from one building to another, making it more accessible to the public is totally the same thing as stealing it.

The Barnes Foundation was NOT a museum.

Except that it was in the public trust since the 90's when the foundation went bankrupt due to the BoT's mismanagement and had to be bailed out by the state, twice, and received public funds. If it looks like a museum and quacks like a museum, it's going to be treated like one. Calling it theft is just the shrill hyperbole of the trustees.

That, and the fact that the terms of Barnes' own will was causing irreparable damage to the art itself, like putting van gogh's in direct sunlight. The new building is better for the art, as well as the public.

So you aren't familiar with the concept of private property I take it?

I'm familiar with it. Are you familiar with incompetence? Because that's what caused the problem with the Barnes in the first place- the Barnes trustees mismanaged the foundation's investments so badly it had to get bailed out by the state, and they agreed to the original move back in the 90's. It's not art theft, and calling it that minimizes the actual art theft that occurs on a daily basis.

One of the biggest collections of modernist and impressionist art is now open to the public in a gigantic facility that will be able to take care of the art that was being destroyed in the old building that housed it, because it was impossible to put in any modern conservation facilities in it. Pardon me if I don't shed a tear for the terms of Barnes' old will, which would have led to the art's eventual destruction.

All the crises were purely manufactured with the express intention of breaking Barne's will. The City of Philadelphia had a hard-on for the collection, and they farked over Albert's last wished to get their grubby paws on it. A picture was catching sunlight? Albert says fark you AND the horse ...

Yes, we get it, you know nothing about historic preservation or object conservation.

Marcus Aurelius:
All the crises were purely manufactured with the express intention of breaking Barne's will. The City of Philadelphia had a hard-on for the collection, and they farked over Albert's last wished to get their grubby paws on it. A picture was catching sunlight? Albert says fark you AND the horse ...


Actually, you're wrong. There are a lot of problems with paintings being in direct sunlight. But that's besides the point. The first people to modify the terms of the will were the trustees themselves, because they couldn't get enough people to come visit in the first place, couldn't loan any art, and couldn't charge for admission, all because of the terms of Barnes' will. He didn't know, or have reason to know, that things would change as drastically as they did because he drafted his will a hundred years ago.
But the trustees modified the will in court several times before the Philadelphia charities stepped in to bail them out. It's not a theft. Get that through your head. The terms of the will were literally strangling the foundation.

If you want a decent write up on the situation, along with an explanation for the legal theory behind cy pres, read this journal article.

http://www.cklawreview.com/wp-content /uploads/vol85no3/Gary.pdf

rebelyell2006:


Thank you! I've been trying to get that point across all morning.

relevant to his interests



/one of my favorite movies

lordaction: So you aren't familiar with the concept of private property I take it?


Some of us aren't a fan of control by a "dead hand" which prevents proper preservation and conservation of culturally significant works.

notmtwain: Man describes his role in the biggest art theft in history

[www.archives.gov image 440x298]

// How about scaling that back a bit? Maybe the biggest theft of art in suburban Philly?

wildcardjack: [assets.natgeotv.com image 640x360]

Wanna talk art theft? These guys didn't use lawyers, they used armored divisions.

Its only theft if you end up losing the war, its called to the Victors go the Spoils if you win.