By: Paul Campos
So when she said the foundation was in terrible shape she was telling the truth, but now she’s lying. Got it.
View ArticleBy: Murc
Then the legal privileges for trusts should be changed broadly. My problem here is that this was a one-off. A bunch of rich and powerful people hated Barnes’ trust, and so they decided to break it....
View ArticleBy: Substance McGravitas
A little digging says you’re correct, which is a disservice to the art. I wonder how they were hung when the collection travelled?
View ArticleBy: Hogan
What if the terms of your trust are inhibiting its ability to serve the ill served in the interest of cocking a snook (yes, I said it) at plutocrats? Does the government owe you tax advantages for your...
View ArticleBy: Hogan
The arrangements are an essential part of Barnes’s theory of art education, which may be ill conceived but he’s entitled to it. Preserving the arrangements doesn’t mean you have to preserve the...
View ArticleBy: Murc
Er… yes, if I went through the proper channels? I’m dead serious. If the government crafts a law that says “we can modify any trust we deem to have been established out of petty spite” then fine, go...
View ArticleBy: Murc
Uh-huh. Paul articulates a viewpoint that you think is wrong based on your superior knowledge of the situation, but when queries about said knowledge you refuse to either cite it or go into detail...
View ArticleBy: Hogan
“we can modify any trust we deem to have been established out of petty spite” The petty spite itself is irrelevant. If the trust includes conditions that make it less able or unable to carry out its...
View ArticleBy: Paul Campos
The notion that Barnes created his trust out of “petty spite” does not at all jibe with the facts as presented in the film (and before anybody strokes out again I’m not saying the film constitutes the...
View ArticleBy: John
Murc – why do you believe your reading of Paul’s summary of an agitprop documentary gives you a better sense of the legal and factual issues here than Judge Ott had?
View ArticleBy: Bloix
I visited the Barnes as part of a pre-arranged tour group in the 1980′s. It was a curious place – some heart-stoppingly beautiful paintings, many curious artifacts, and more second-rate Renoirs than...
View ArticleBy: Jon H
“Overbrook/Merion are twenty minutes from Market East” Walking? Google puts it as 1 hour 40 minutes walking, 40 minutes by public transportation.
View ArticleBy: Jon H
What role, if any, did the Catholic Church play in trying to keep the Barnes where it is? The old location was practically on St. Joseph’s campus, and the Archbishop’s mansion is close by. I could see...
View ArticleBy: John
I believe that St. Joe’s bought up the old Episcopal High School campus and prevented the Barnes from buying part of it and building a parking lot there. So they helped prevent keeping it in Merion, in...
View ArticleBy: etv13
I’m with Josh G. here. In what sense is Barnes “entitled to it”? For how long? If Barnes has a say, what about Gauguin and Renoir et al? Why aren’t we consulting their putative posthumous opinions?
View ArticleBy: John
And <a href="http://www.law.umaryland.edu/programs/initiatives/arts/documents/Barnes04dec.pdf" rel="nofollow">here</a> is Judge Ott's final decision allowing the move.
View ArticleBy: John
<a href="http://www.philly.com/philly/entertainment/museums/20120503_On_May_19__a_stone_s_throw_from__quot_the_House_of_.html?viewAll=y" rel="nofollow">Here</a> is a good article on the...
View Article
