WRITEMARSH!: More On The Barnes Foundation

Thursday, June 5, 2008

More On The Barnes Foundation

I've received a few comments on my post:

Castor/Hoeffel Treated Like Mushrooms About Barnes Decision...

Feeling that they are worthy of their own post, I have included them below and added my rebuttal to the last, anonymous post:

Lisa said...: Barnes' wishes were very clear; the moving of the Barnes Foundation is a political move by the Philadelphia Art Museum to drum visitors to the museum. It is an outrage that his trust is being broken for greed.

Perhaps it is unrealistic to expect one's wishes to be carried out in perpetuity after one's death. But unrealistic or not, anyone who wishes to put their property in a trust should be paying close attention to the Barnes case.

June 4, 2008 8:34 PM
Anonymous said...: While I don't disagree with the intent and that the trust should be "forever", I find it hard that money should be spent fighting a move that in the end benefits the culture of all.

In the end tens of millions more people will get to see the paintings in a recreated atmosphere they were meant to be - european gallery with the art hanging from floor to ceiling on all walls - in a recreated museum on the Parkway.

I also find it hard that in Castor's time as DA we couldn't get standing. If he knows how there is a way, why wasn't it done in 2004? Why spend a dime more on this? We need to pave roads, fight crime and end poverty, not make an elite museum that is losing money stay in its current location on principal.

June 5, 2008 4:36 PM
My Rebuttal:
Bill Shaw said...: "anonymous", I would have to disagree with your sentiments.; Imagine working hard all of your life, setting a trust up for your children and your grandchildren, only to have some judge decide that your wishes weren't important enough to uphold.

Then imagine him taking your amassed fortune, which you already bequeathed to your family, and giving it to another family.

Is this right? Is this fair? No, it isn't.

What Judge Ott's decision does, and I'm sure it was unintentional on his part, is makes a loophole for any and all "trusts" set up for a specific purpose subject to the discretion of any and all common pleas courts to decide the disposition.

Before we just blindly lay down and accept this outcome,we better ask ourselves this question...is this what we want for ourselves and our children and grandchildren's future?

One more point to ponder...Would you want the Statue of Liberty or the Liberty Bell moved to a more convenient location in our country, just to make it more feasible for a greater number of people to enjoy it? The Barnes is/was a private collection, shared by a very special man. Leave it where it belongs, in the home he had built specifically for it. His memory deserves, at the very least, this much.

B.

disregard this link:

3 comments:

Anonymous said...: Amen Bill. Thanks for saying what you said. This Barnes thing leaves much to be desired. Look at Gerry Lenfest? Causing all that trouble over at Valley Forge and writing a bIG check for this? And the Pew Trusts? What do they get? And Lenore Annenberg? Is it true her late husband hated Dr. Barnes? And the relationships involved with those on the Barnes Board, their other Philly affiliations, Barnes related lawyers, etc, etc should be looked into by the Attorney General, but will he?

Jim Matthews is chief asshat and bottlewasher. Hoeffel is just jumping on the Castor bandwagon to try to earn brownie points. However today was like the last day to file for reconsideration in front of Judge Ott, right?

Who looks into Montco Judges? Maybe Ott needs a little light on him?

Philadelphia Society at the time shunned Dr. Barnes and mocked his art purchases...now they want them. Greedy bast@rds. Hope they choke on their checkbooks. Interesting how Barnes used to be NOCD (Not Our Class Darling), now he is all the rage?; June 5, 2008 at 7:02 PM
Lisa Mossie said...: On June 5, Anonymous said "I find it hard (sic)that money should be spent fighting a move that in the end benefits the culture of all.

In the end tens of millions more people will get to see the paintings in a recreated atmosphere they were meant to be - european gallery with the art hanging from floor to ceiling on all walls - in a recreated museum on the Parkway."

Isn't this classic socialist justification of wealth redistribution? Not sure if Anonymous is a dyed-in-the-wool socialist or not, but his argument for divesting private property for the "public good" sure is.; June 6, 2008 at 8:34 PM
Anonymous said...: "I find it hard that money should be spent fighting a move that in the end benefits the culture of all."

Go read about the destruction of Penn Station. Huge benefits to the community of a new sports venue in a run-down, undeveloped part of town, in a station that hardly anyone was using any more. Ask today's New Jersey commuters how much they benefit. "One entered the city like a god; one scuttles in now like a rat."

Go read about Duke Gardens just 60 miles away in New Jersey. What a fabulous idea to make the whole property a 'Green Beacon'. Oh, and by the way, that means destroying the internationally renowned Gardens personally created by the woman who left the estate plus a billion dollars to charity. And yes, using her money to do it.

Go read about the Buddhas of Bamyan. Mullah Mohammad Omar provides some quite reasonable social reasons for the Taliban destroying the 1400 year old statues.

Always looks as if it's being done for the benefit of the community - on paper. You can fool all of the people some of the time.; June 15, 2008 at 11:53 PM