The Barnes Finds Its Place - P.A.W. Print - Philadelphia Arts Writers

The Barnes Foundation’s proposed move to the Ben Franklin Parkway was stalled last winter when a Montgomery County Court ruled that the Foundation provided insufficient evidence in their petition to move the collection to Philadelphia. The January 29 order from Orphans’ Court Judge Stanley Judge Ott granted the Foundation’s request to expand the Board of Trustees from five members to fifteen. But at the same time, Judge Ott denied the part of the petition asking to move, pending studies on the necessity and viability of a Philadelphia Barnes.


	Barnes Foundation Executive Director, Kimberly Camp

The evidence the judge requested may be compiled for a ruling as early as September, according to an official from the Pew Charitable Trusts, which is commissioning the studies requested. Such a quick verdict would be a fitting conclusion to the latest chapter in the Barnes litigious saga. One of the world’s most staid art institutions is in the process of rejuvenation, shaping into a dynamic, twenty-first century non-profit in only a few years. If the petition is approved by next fall, it will be the culmination of a rapid, dramatic modernization.

The Mold

Albert C. Barnes created the Barnes Foundation in 1922. Born into a working class section of Philadelphia in the 1870s, he made his fortune inventing and selling an antiseptic silver compound called Agyrol. After being introduced to the art world by his friend, artist William Glackens, Barnes proceeded not only to collect masterworks, but to develop a distinctive, intellectual and pedagogical approach to art dubbed, “the Method.” His first education director at the Barnes was the philosopher John Dewey. Predictably, the eccentricity did not end with Barnes’ life.

According to the Foundation’s charter, works by turn of the century giants like Cezanne and Modigliani were to be forever displayed in the patterns of Barne’s choosing. The paintings were to remain stacked up to the ceiling, without conventional organization by a period or artist, and without dates and titles. Critical to the gallery’s current woes was the charter’s stipulation that the collection remain in Lower Merion Township. Barnes’ educational program reserved the galleries for his classes on three days of the week. Combined with limits on visitors imposed by the local Township, the foundation has since its inception allowed in no more than 1200 visitors weekly. By the 1990’s, the Barnes had run into serious financial trouble. Its endowment in 1951 stood at ten million dollars but was invested so poorly, it still stood at about ten million forty years later. Litigation with Lower Merion over the town’s restrictions dragged on for years. The lawsuits, combined with the Foundation’s reputation as a peculiar and hermitic institution, scared away donors. Added to the fundraising woes were strict limits not only on visitors, but ticket prices as well (admission was one dollar until fairly recently). The foundation was frequently mired in deficits.

The board’s response to the bad news was Kimberly Camp. Since Camp’s appointment as the Foundation’s first executive director in 1998, she has turned the Barnes into a modern non-profit. In an interview, Camp came to the essence of her new approach succinctly. “Donors give to people, not projects.”

Before Camp’s arrival, one of the world’s greatest galleries was run by a skeletal staff of 25. When asked about the state of collection care in 1998, Camp was tart, “There was no collection care.” The Foundation had no PR staff. There wasn’t a complete inventory of works in storage. Ker-Feal, an estate that houses thousands of pieces of 18th century decorative American art, had fallen into such a state of disrepair that mold had to be removed from the interior walls of its two manor houses. A host of antiquated, slapdash practices made large donations from philanthropic organizations impossible according to Camp.

Camp responded to these failings by expanding the staff. A host of professionals were recruited: to expand the educational program, to improve the Barnes’ image, to court funds aggressively. The professionals have produced measurable results. Attendance in courses once taught by the likes of Bertrand Russell is back up from abysmal lows. The greenhouse at the Foundation’s arboretum has been knocked down and rebuilt. Money has flooded in, from a new gift shop and trimmed-down legal fees.

However, this expansion, in staff, maintenance, and ambition has also cost money. The administrative transformation has not brought about a financial transformation. The foundation remains in fiscal trouble.

Pew Charitable Trusts and the Lenfest and Annenberg Foundations offered a solution to the budget crisis when they promised to help raise $150 million for the Barnes if it would move to Philadelphia. In September 2002, the Barnes petitioned to move the site of the gallery, arguing the entire enterprise was in jeopardy. In testimony Camp and board president Dr. Bernard C. Watson insisted that only in Philadelphia could the Barnes maintain its professionalism and its solvency. If Necessary

In his ruling, delivered on January 29, Judge Ott laid the groundwork for a move, writing, “We gather that our Superior Court would find that the present location of the gallery is not sacrosanct, and relocation may be permitted if necessary to achieve the settler’s ultimate purposes.” The Foundation, however, did not prove to the court that the move was necessary.

The main problem concerned the Foundation’s assets in thousands of un-displayed works as well as the 137-acre estate in Chester County, Ker-Feal. The court ruled that until the foundation proved that its financial woes could not be solved through selling these assets, it couldn’t approve the more extreme step of a move to the Parkway. Judge Ott complained that the Foundation was pitching the move as the “only lifeboat in the entire sea.” He also criticized the tendentiousness of the Foundation’s self- appraisal. “Since outside charities are footing the Foundation’s legal bill in these hearings, we accept their single–option theory as the product of zealous advocacy.”

Another reason for the court’s denial was the lack of a study showing that the financial model for a Philadelphia Barnes was viable. The cost of a building on the Parkway is projected at 100 million dollars, with an additional 50 million needed to replenish the gallery’s endowment. But the judge complained that these estimates were not backed up by solid evidence. “We have only a preliminary “guesstimate” about the real cost of constructing the new venue… There have been no feasibility studies or pro formas projecting the success of the proposed venue.”

In response to the lack of hard data on the move and the alternatives to it, Judge Ott mandated that the Barnes Foundation undertake an analysis of its saleable (that is, un-displayed) assets. If 50 million can be raised through the sale of those paintings, the deal for the Parkway may be finished. According to Bruce Mann, a Penn Law School professor following the case, $50 million or more in holdings might prompt the judge to deny the request to leave Lower Merion. “I think in the right circumstances [Judge Ott] is certainly prepared to tell them to start selling of stuff if the appraisal comes in at a number that makes it look like they can raise enough money to stay where they are.”

In the courtroom last December, Foundation officials insisted that the sale would not generate the money to revitalize the trust. But the appraisal of thousands of works might lead to a different conclusion. The Philadelphia Inquirer reported in April that an offer was made for Ker-Feal for $12 million, mentioning that there are several unseen works in the Foundation’s storage by artists such as Chaim Soutine, William Glackens, Maurice Brazil Prendergast, and Gustave Courbet, each worth $1 to $3.5 million dollars.

Camp raised further objections to selling these holdings in our conversation. She referred to the Association of Art Museum Directors, a group which maintains that it is unethical to sell works in a collection to cover operating expenses. A statement from the organization’s website outlines why there is a taboo in the art museum world against selling holdings, also called deaccessioning. “A museum's collections, lovingly built up over many years with care, expertise, and dedication, are a public trust… To reduce the core [the collection] is to diminish the institution, to lessen its worth to the community, and to violate the public trust.” Even as the Barnes’ existence is threatened Camp is adamant. “We have no intention of deaccessioning anything.”

The Traditionalists

Unfortunately for proponents of the move, it isn’t just money that is hampering their case. On the other side, opposing the relocation, are equally fervent concerns about the Barnes’ future. Some worry that the new Parkway Barnes will not maintain its identity, its Method. Many who appreciate the gallery’s idiosyncrasies-- students in particular, want, as much as possible, for the Barnes to remain as it is.

Three art students who study at the gallery opposed the Foundation in hearings last December. Their attorney argued that the move would devastate the gallery’s identity as a unique educational institution. In a phone interview, the lawyer representing the students, Terrance Klein, claimed, “My clients and the beneficiaries of the trust will lose one of the world’s great art education institutions by virtue of not only the move, but destruction of the art education program at the Barnes foundation, in favor of a museum, which Dr. Barnes in his will never intended.”

In our conversation, Camp strenuously maintained that a Philadelphia Barnes is, and would continue to be, called, an “educational institution.” She noted that attendance at the galleries would still be restricted to make room for classes. She added that rising class attendance and a new k-12 educational program had made the education at the museum stronger. She contended that the suing students had made faulty assumptions about the plans for Philadelphia. “Their allegations are not true.” Meanwhile, Peter Schjeldahl, an art critic writing in the New Yorker last February, fretted over the translation of Barnes’ vision to a Philadelphia location. “Altering so much as a molecule of one of the greatest art installations I have ever seen would be an aesthetic crime… The Barnes is a work of art in itself, more than the sum of its fabulous parts.” Yet Camp sees no basis for concerns about the durability of Barnes’ arrangements. “All of that will remain the same. The relationships between rooms will remain the same, the wall finishes the same, the ensembles the same.”

Wait and Hope

In the end, the fate of the move may hinge on the findings of the soon-to-be released appraisal. Mann views the valuation as probably decisive. “If it was appraised at more than $50 million, it would not be automatic that the court petition would fail. It certainly makes it much more likely it would fail.”

More is at stake in relocation than the future of 180 Renoirs, 60 Mattisses, and 19 Picassos, among dozens of other masterpieces. Meryl Levitz President of the Greater Philadelphia Tourism Marketing Corporation, may have been decidedly understated in describing the move’s potential impact on tourism as “positive, immediate, and longstanding.” Combined with the collection of Impressionists and Post-Impressionists at the Philadelphia Museum, the city stands poised to adopt an identity as the destination in America for those ultra-popular, turn of the century genres. For now, Philadelphia’s aesthetes and tourist industry workers can only wait and hope. Levitz probably best sums up the attitude of those concerned. “I’m optimistic, but only because I’m an optimistic person. I see nothing in the case to be optimistic or pessimistic about.”

The Typical Board

Regardless of the move, Judge Ott furthered Camp’s reformation when he allowed for the expansion of the Board of Trustees. He granted the expansion, writing, “It is imperative that the trustees have wide ranging experience, expertise, and contacts, and the ability to attract donors of substance. A board of only five trustees, no matter how talented and dedicated the individuals may be, cannot meet the enormous responsibility of carrying the Foundation into the twenty-first century.” The ruling significantly reduces the influence of Lincoln University, which will now appoint only a third of the Foundation’s board members. At Barnes behest, the current board of five is almost entirely appointed by the small African American-led college. Recently, Lincoln University Board members have frightened away potential donors with their opposition to the move and allegations of racism on the part of the Barnes board.

The bigger board will be roughly the typical size for a nonprofit. Typicality, in administrative matters at least, may be the new credo of this unusual institution. After so many years of turmoil and hardship, that philosophy is no doubt welcomed by Camp. Parity with other non-profit institutions of its kind with a measure of normality, seems the Barnes’ most certain future.

The Barnes Foundation is located at 300 North Latch’s Lane in Merion. Advanced reservations are required for all visits. Call (610) 667-0290 or visit their website at www.barnesfoundation.org.