I saw an old thread from 2010 but didn’t want to bump it up. It’s on neflix now and I just saw it last night.
This is the wikipedia background on it: The Art of the Steal (2009 film) - Wikipedia
Captain Amazing’s breakdown in the old thread was pretty spot on:
Albert Barnes was a doctor living near Philadelphia who made a fortune by inventing a new type of antibiotic eye drop to treat babies born to women who might have VD. Then, in the 1920s, he spent much of it on impressionist and modern art, which he put in a building next to his home. Since American art critics in the 20s weren’t fans of impressionism and modernism, they panned him, and since Barnes was misanthropic and held a grudge, he decided “When I die, these bastards who call themselves ‘art critics’ aren’t going to get hold of my paintings”. So he set up a foundation to manage his collection after his death, with the conditions that the place be run as an art school, not open to the public except in restrictive circumstances, and that the paintings in the collection shouldn’t be sold, loaned out, or moved from their location.
The movie looks at the current controversy regarding the Barnes Foundation (which I won’t go into in this post, in case anyone wants to watch the film unspoiled by the ending). The film is clearly biased…it doesn’t even pretend to be objective, but it’s an extremely fun movie. When I went into it, I didn’t think I’d like it (we only saw it after the film we wanted to see was sold out), but in hindsight, I’m glad I saw it.
I was wondering what the reaction is now, seeing as more people might have seen it, and also to solicit opinions on whether the wishes of an heirless dead man trumps the [commercialized] utility gained from sharing the art with as many people as possible.