The Art of the Steal

September 10, 2009 by Lindsay Gibb

Director and cinematographer Don Argott’s latest doc, The Art of the Steal, strangely made me feel the same way I felt last year when a news story came out about a woman in the Greater Toronto Area who was forced to get rid of her garden by the municipal government. Reportedly, the woman had a very unruly front garden that spanned her entire lawn, but she said it was made up of hundreds of rare plant life. Her neighbors, on the other hand, said it was an eyesore.

It’s frustrating when one person’s art is another person’s annoyance. And in The Art of the Steal, which tells the story of Dr. Albert Barnes’ multi billion dollar art collection and the strange voyage it takes after his death, it’s equally as frustrating when one person’s art becomes another’s commerce.

Argott’s doc shows a collection, ordered by Barnes in his will not to be removed from its space or opened for public viewing, which is torn between students of the Barnes Foundation and the City of Philadelphia which wants to exhibit the art in a public gallery. The story is shocking, compelling and at times ridiculous, as Lincoln University’s representative goes against the will at every turn in order to make money to renovate the space that housed the collection. When the collection opens to the public and the residential neighborhood in which the art is kept becomes bombarded with tourists, the fate of the collection and Barnes’ wishes, take a turn for what his supporters deem to be the worst.

However, another similarity between this doc and the articles about the woman’s garden is I felt manipulated by both. Following the story of the “stolen” garden, readers were lead to feel sympathy for this woman and anger toward the government and her neighbors. While perhaps her neighbors did care too much about the formality of a front lawn, it later came out that maybe that garden wasn’t so rare, and there was a chance it was really just a bunch of weeds. While Barnes’ collection is by no means a bunch of weeds – it contains 181 Renoir’s, 69 Cézanne’s, 59 Matisse’s and 46 Picasso’s – what happened to his collection may not be quite the travesty it is made out to be.

As an art lover, and someone who usually roots for the underdog and the misunderstood as opposed to the powers that be, it’s likely that I would have taken up the cause of Barnes’ supporters even if the doc had been more balanced, but the doc clearly villainizes the bureaucrats and city officials responsible for moving (and cashing in on) the collection and rallies behind Barnes’ supporters. So, while the story of Barnes and his collection is fascinating, I can’t help but feel that the doc could have benefited from a little more balance.

The Art of the Steal will have its world premiere at this year’s Toronto International Film Festival.

4 Comments on “The Art of the Steal”

Robert Zaller September 13th, 2009 3:00 am
Normally, there are two sides to every story. Not this time. The attempt to break Barnes’ will and destroy the intent and purpose of his collection for commercial exploitation and profit is nothing less than the greatest attempted theft of art since World War II–a point I have made in various forums. Your comparison of Cezanne and Matisse with a neighbor’s exotic but unruly garden is quite unfortunate. In fact, the Barnes estate includes a carefully planned garden designed to complement the collection, and whose current sorry state is the result of the Barnes board’s wilful neglect. I look forward to seeing “The Art of the Steal” in New York. The title–justly–says it all.
nancy herman September 13th, 2009 10:38 am
Apparently the folks on the other side of this heist (the Barnes Trustees, Pew, Annenberg and Lenfest) refused to be interviewed making more balanced movie impossible.

http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2009/09/12/rock-school-documentarian-don-argott-turns-his-attention-to-the-art-world/
A.C.B September 13th, 2009 10:27 pm
It could have been a balanced story if only the folks behind the move had agreed to be interviewed for the film; instead they refused. Nevertheless, those who know the facts of this matter, and there are many, understand that this is happening for no other reason than to promote tourism in Philadelphia. Even this idea is absurd, given that the art is now just five miles from the intended location and the Barnes already generates tourism revenue for Philadelphia at no cost to the City or the public. Instead, they intend to spend at least $200 million (in direct costs on this folly), at a time when the Pennsylvania State budget calls for slashing ALL money for the arts. Economics aside, there is no alternative to a Barnes in Merion, PA: No matter how beautiful and prestigious a new container for the paintings might be, a Barnes Foundation in Philadelphia will never be the work of art that Albert Barnes created, but instead the work of cultural vandalism that the Pew, Lenfest and Annenberg Foundations created, with Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell as a shil for this scheme.
Ben March 6th, 2010 6:46 am
It’s rare that before any art moves the art gets broken, I guess money can do that….

The definitive factual resource.
Over 5,000 company listings!

Photos

Factual Entertainment Forum 2011 - High Noon Entertainment CEO Jim Berger accepts an award for “Cake Boss: Next Great Baker” at Realscreen’s Factual Entertainment Awards in Santa Monica.