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)

The information I learnt through the readings, movie and discussion primarily drove home to me how lucky I am to be able to see these art pieces. The paper I wrote about my visit to the Barnes was almost exclusively about my observations on Henri Rousseau’s “Scout Attacked By a Tiger”; the information I learnt about Barnes does not affect what I saw in that painting. However, if I rewrote the paper to focus more on the Foundation, the information I learnt would be used to discuss the differences between how the art was originally shown and how it is shown now, and how those differences might affect my interpretation of the art.

Because I wasn’t in class on Tuesday, I feel a bit behind, especially considering how many people have reflected on what we discussed in class. I can, however, reflect on how my opinion changed based on the readings and the movie. And, to be completely honest, my opinion didn’t really change! I already knew that the Barnes Foundation moved, and that it is now much more public. I think that that is great, because just being there for a few hours, I saw so many masterpieces artistically organized on the walls. Making a treasure like that more open and available is an important step when looking at the progression of society.

If I were to redo my Barnes experience, I don’t know what I’d do differently. I’d hopefully go on a day when I don’t feel as sick as I did when I previously went.  It was pretty bad timing, but I think I made the best of it, and found the experience to be stimulating and exciting!

I am confused after reading the articles that explain the original function of this museum. When I see a picture, I prefer to read the stories after it. I’m interested in who is the character in the picture, why painters choose the character and the meaning of the picture. Actually I am not used to enjoying a picture by noticing its lines, colors or structures. However, Barnes hopes visitors can enjoy the picture without those backgrounds. Although I do not have the background information, I still try to find such information by staying with the picture for a long time. The museum changes its position. Luckily, they did not change the arrangement of artworks here. I don’t think it is a large problem to change the museum’s position. Compared to this problem, the existence of audio tour works more against the original idea of Barnes. It makes Barnes Foundation a real commercial museum instead of an educational place. I will re-write my paper and focus more on the picture itself but not the story of it.

I don't think I really look at my experience at the Barnes differently after watching the movie and reading the article. I already knew it had been moved, but I was happy that it was, or at least indifferent on the conflict over moving it, because I know I probably wouldn't have gotten the same chance to visit it as I did. I think it's good that the Foundation is more open to the public, but I also think it was fine before it was public. Similarly, the class discussion did not really change my view on the painting I analyzed. I'd like to look at it again, just to see if I notice anything else, but I do not think I would really have a dramatic change of heart regarding my opinion or reading of it.

When spending my thirty minutes at The Barnes with Peter Paul Ruben’s The Incarnation as Fulfillment of All the Prophecies, a lot of material covered in my art history class came flooding back.  I found myself spending a great time analyzing the piece based on preconceived notions and facts on classical artwork rather than having my own natural experience with it.  If given the option to relive my Barnes trip, I would have chosen a work of art different than the religious and fairly familiar piece chosen.  When visiting, I was also attached to Van Gogh’s Postman, which I may have had more success writing about as I know little about his style.