Whither the Barnes? - controversy surrounding the Barnes Foundation's touring exhibition of French paintings - Cover Story

Art in America, March, 1994 by Anne Higonnet

One of the most serious allegations raised by the students, and the one that continues to haunt the Barnes, is the charge that some of the damage evident in the museum is a result of "intentional neglect" by the trustees in order to create a need to break the indenture. The students cited, for example, one incident in which trustees allowed paintings to be carelessly removed from their frames for photography, only in order to add damaged frames and cracking and flaking paintings to their budgetary woes.(30) After hearing this, Judge Stefan required the Barnes trustees to provide evidence that the paintings could travel safely. He insisted that paintings had to be in good condition already or in such a state that conservation work on them could be completed before the start of the tour.

All testimony regarding these matters was given by conservators employed by the National Gallery, hardly disinterested witnesses. The counsel for the students argued that the testimony of an independent conservator, Dr. Nathan Stolow, should be heard, but this petition was rejected. Wendy Hartman Samet, an associate painting conservator at the Winterthur Museum nearby, who had been free-lancing at the Barnes, voiced reservations about the paintings traveling as well as about how National Gallery staff preparing the catalogue had handled the paintings; she was dismissed from the Barnes. In October 1992, Art Watch International, an art-restoration watchdog group headed by Columbia art-history professor James Beck, issued a pamphlet questioning the safety of the paintings during a tour; it was titled "Paintings in the Barnes Collection in Imminent Peril."

Recents events seem to confirm the students' original misgivings the Barnes's motivations and veracity. No plans have been disclosed for the crucial redesign of the art gallery by Robert Venturi and Denise Scott-Brown [see "Front Page," Sept. '92 and Feb. '93], the "reason" for staging the touring exhibition in the first place. And yet, despite Judge Stefan's explicit limitation of the tour and his restriction of fundraising to the $7 million necessary for immediate renovations, on Oct. 22, the foundation's board petitioned for two additional venues, the Art Gallery of Ontario in Toronto and the Kimbell Art Museum in Fort Worth. If approved, these two venues will yield an additional $6.2 million in revenue for the Barnes.(31)

On Nov. 10, Glanton was sued for contempt of court by Tinari, who charged that Glanton had deliberately attempted to subvert Judge Stefan's limitations on the tour. Although Glanton's attorneys argued that any arrangements for further venues were, of course, "contingent" on court approval, it was revealed that both the Art Gallery of Ontario and the Kimbell had placed $1 million each in escrow to ensure their participation in the tour. [On Feb. 2, as we went to press, the court did in fact announce its approval for extending the tour to the Kimbell and the Art Gallery of Ontario. For more details, see "Front Page" in this issue.l