Blogs

When I went to the Barnes I was attracted to my painting because of the sense of joyful movement that it gave me. I would like to think of this first attraction as an  “esthetic” experience, which I managed to have in an environment that was not how Barnes originally intended. Even in an overcrowded room with upper-class people, encapsulated in a modern box and in a nice neighborhood the art was not completely stripped of its potential to allow people to think in some of ways that Barnes planned. After Barnes’s death I don’t think either location would ever have attracted a crowd that wasn’t skewed towards upper class, especially considering that the old Barnes was located in a rich neighborhood. In my revision I want to look at the new Barnes as a pieces of artwork in itself and try to read it using Barnes’s principals.

When It’s A Bad Time 

The college process is hardly kind to anybody.  As a freshman in college, I am finding myself looking back on my admissions process with more of an understanding as to its long-term effect on the mind.  The selection process utilized by most colleges and universities essentially aims to compare the qualities and statistical achievements of a student to those of the current student body, thus determining a certain “fit” that must be met to determine acceptance to the school. A mosaic of sorts, or so it seems they aim for: what “student” are you, and is that what we are looking for in our “community”?

Bryn Mawr was the only college that seemed truly invested in figuring out my place (or lack thereof) in the college’s community.  Admittedly, it is a huge marketing pull on their part.  Standing with such open arms on the opposite side of the harrowing college process was indeed a wonderful feeling, but it prevented me from accurately reflecting on the extremely problematic nature of the pre-college admissions process, more specifically towards those who struggle or have struggled with mental illness.

What struck me most in reading the articles and watching the movie was the long history of corruption involved in the care of the Barnes museum. It was not a case of faithful following of Barnes' will up until the point where it was suddenly moved to Philadelphia out of a lack of funds, it was far more complicated than that. However, I find this would not be a useful piece of information for writing a paper. To write a paper on how the Barnes Foundation was cared for, I would need to essentially summarize the movie, and I do not remember all of the different people who were in charge of it. Most of the story of the actual school/museum does not affect my reading of the painting itself. Since I knew before going to the Barnes Foundation that Barnes intended for us to read the painting in terms of what else was on the same wall, I included this approach in my original reading. The only thing I find different is that I am even more struck by the sense that I am not supposed to be there, visiting the Barnes, than I was before. Barnes didn't want Bryn Mawr students to come to his collection, even when it was practically in our backyard. He didn't want us to be able to simply go in on any day. He especially didn't want us able to research any given painting and looking into its background, as was provided by the audio tours. However, I see no way I can use this to grow my paper.

I would like to focus on intellectual property and human rights in my upcoming paper. I will be reading some of the novel Intellectual Property and Human Development and I will be exploring utilitarian arguments concerning intellectual property. While watching The Art of Steal I thought about one of the proponent's (of the move of the Barnes Foundation) arguments: that art should be accessible to large groups of people. Although the film did not emphasize this argument, the argument is a good one, and at the core of it are the issues of intellectual property and human rights. So, is art the property of the person who buys it? Or, is it human property? Since Van Gogh's art influences massive amounts of people, does it belong to humanity or to the sole owner of the Van Gogh? I think it would be a mighty feat to answer these questions and I doubt I'll be able to do it. But, I hope to explore these issues and the questions they raise.

Barnes Foundation gave me an impression of expensive when I entered. The minimalist architecture, the coat and bag searching, the well-dressed visitors, and the large empty space felt expensive. It smelled expensive. So I thought "well, another Parkway building". But I came back and watch the documentary, and realized that this was exactly what Barnes didn't want. So maybe I'll write about the different experiences one would have in the old and new building.

As for the last trip, I'm interested in Philadelphia's Mural Arts Program, specifically The North Philadelphia Beacon Project, because it decorates the most ramshackle area of Philly. 

Having grown up in the area I knew a little about the Barnes Foundation going into this assignment.  I knew, for example, that it was not just paintings but rather paintings and sculptures and furniture and other odds and ends that Dr. Barnes thought to be significant.  It was only after watching The Art of the Steal and reading the articles that I realized that he was also a grumpy and picky old man.  But I feel that if he was alive right now he would be extremely upset.  Upset not only with the move of his foundation but upset with the assignment set before us now.  

We talked about Barnes with sympathy; after his death many of his wishes (including his will) were totally ignored.  We talked about how this was a mean thing to do.  But aren’t we doing the same thing?  Would Barnes want us (Bryn Mawr students) 1) being at his foundation in the first place and 2) spending time with one single piece of art?  His entire dream for the foundation was for it to be a place of learning, not just of art but of the connections in art.  By having us spend more and more time with this particular topic, I feel that we also are the mean bad guys who disregarded a dead man’s wishes for their own benefit.

I thought the story of the Barnes was really interesting. I thought that the documentary, Art of the Steal, was a little bit pretentious but did open me up to what happened after Barnes died. However, if I were to visit the Barnes again, I would not view the museum differently, as it doesn't really change the fact that it's full of art that is meant to educate and enlighten people through Barnes' version of art. I probably would choose a different painting, because I felt as if the one I chose wasn't very interesting.

To “reread” the essay I wrote on my trip to the Barnes, I would, first of all, rewrite the “Barnes Version” essay, as opposed to the “Academic” one. I really threw in the former version at the last second as a joke; I thought I understood the difference between Barnes’ way of “reading” art and the academic way that he so loathed. I didn’t understand Barnes’ viewpoint well enough until we talked through his ideals for the Foundation in class. Now, however, I’m cautiously confident that I could look again at my painting of choice but focus more on what Barnes thinks is important, using both Dewey’s book and his to do so.

I’ve been thinking a lot about the idea of mourning being a privilege. I think the way mourning is romanticized does present it as a privilege, different people have different means and therefor more access to ways of dealing with their loss. I think it is important to understand the difference between mourning and grief. There really is no way to escape either, but grief may the more exhausting of the two. My mom lost her mother in February and the transition to the holiday season has been especially tough on her, we were at a family party yesterday and she kept saying “fake it till you make it.” She forces a smile and that almost puts away the burden of mourning but that makes the burden of grief so much more present on her face. There is a privilege in mourning if you look at it from a economic point of view, can you afford to take the time off from work, can you pay for therapy etc. but everyone has their losses and everyone will need to grieve and mourn in whatever way they can regardless of financial ability.  

Whenever Elaine spoke, Jamel leaned forward and listened closely.  He was quiet, polite, deferential.  There was no hint of the fierce temper that the Bing guards knew well.  Here on Rikers Island, Elaine’s lengthy imprisonment gave her a certain authority in the eyes of her younger son.  She could tell that he was proud of her for surviving such a long prison sentence with her dignity intact.  (p. 183)

To (the recovering addicts at Project Renewal), she was a role-model—a real-life example of someone who had made it, who had lifted herself up from the bottom of society and found her place in the workforce.  For her part, Elaine hardly considered herself a success, at least not yet—not until she found an apartment where she could live comfortably with all her children.  (p. 219)