This is a Guest Post by Cathy Presland. Cathy Presland teaches entrepreneurs to grow their business doing what they love. She specializes in helping you get known and generate income online. You can also follow her on Twitter.

They say that truth is stranger than fiction, and it certainly can be more fascinating. This story seemed to have it all: art, greed, anti-establishment backlash, passion, lawsuits, politics, travel, glamor, and of course at the root, money, a lot of money – estimated to be somewhere in the range of $25 billion....

Last week, I watched a film portraying the incredible story of the Barnes Foundation, a collection of post-impressionist and early modern art that is probably the greatest collection of its type anywhere in the world.

And this is not just my opinion. Matisse was reported to say that “the Barnes Foundation is only sane place to see art in America”.


The story of Barnes himself and his rags to riches to unlikely art collector story is fascinating enough. But the real twists and intrigues of the plot came later, in the decades after his death in 1951.

Although the destruction of Barnes’ legacy was probably not the intent of the protagonists, the series of events that followed seemed to create the polar opposite of what Barnes set out in his will of 1922. Had the individuals and institutions involved been trying to overturn his wishes it seems they could not have envisaged a better conclusion.

But were they right or were they wrong in the actions they took? And who really benefits at the end of the day? Perhaps there is a case to be made that we all do?


The background

Alfred Barnes was a poor boy made good. Made so good in fact from his career as a scientist and industrialist that he had vast sums of money to spend on art. Estimated to be worth in the region of $25 billion his collection contains outstanding pieces by European artists such as Picasso, Matisse, Seurat and others.

Amassed over the early years of the twentieth century, in 1923 Barnes exhibited collection at the Academy of Fine Arts in Philadelphia. While Barnes knew what he had without equal, the critics of the time did not agree. Bad reviews, descriptions of the art as “primitive”, “most unpleasant”, “nasty” led to a profound break between Barnes and the art establishment.

This seems to be a defining moment in the story and everything that followed might have gone very differently had the critics admired his wonderful collection – seeing it for what it really was, and what Barnes knew it to be.


The school days

Barnes went on to set up his collection as a school. He abhorred the use of “art as upholstery” as he described the modern way of exhibiting art as a backdrop to social events and fund-raisers. He made strict conditions that his own collection should be maintained after his death for education and teaching, that it should never be loaned, sold or broken up. And he stipulated it should not be moved from his home in Merion, Pennsylvania (a mere 5 miles from Philadelphia).


The vultures start to circle

But in the decades after his death the vultures seemed to circle. With conflict with the press, the political establishment, fights about the state of the building, car parking leading to racially motivated law suites, the twists and turns of the story are like an intricate political thriller. It’s impossible to know what motivated the protagonists. And likely we will never know whether for the love of art and the will to share, or for self-motivated greed.


The ethics

But the story raises core moral issues about the rights of the wishes of the individual over the right of a society to own and view the art created.

On the one hand, surely Barnes had the right to keep his work where he wanted, in whatever way he wanted it to be preserved and shown?

But on the other how wonderful the opportunity to share this collection with the world in way that makes it accessible to those who are prepared to pay and bring an economic benefit to the city of Philadelphia?

I for one would love to see the collection. But I would also love to have seen it where Barnes wanted it shown. To understand something of the character of this complex individual.

What, really, is “right” or “wrong” in this situation? Who’s interests should be held at the center? And how to unravel the strands of moral and ethical argument?

The passion of the players on all sides of the story was evident and ultimately heart-wrenching. And the story ends with the greatest irony of them all. Exactly what Barnes fought so hard to prevent. His collection is being moved into a new purpose built building that will open in early 2012. Moved out of its purpose-built home in Merion and placed in the center of the art establishment that Barnes loathed.


Breaking trust – no simple right and wrong

There is no doubt that the “trust” Barnes placed with the guardians who followed has been broken. The trust he placed in the generations who followed in his footsteps. But the saddest part of the whole story is the acrimony with which the various stages were fought out. Art should be appreciated. Surely the greater good could have prevailed in a way that respected the intentions of Alfred Barnes?

And the story of one art collector surely raises issues for all of us in the creative community. What place have personal wishes against the wider considerations of the benefits to society and the economy? What is “ownership”? And who has the right to decide?

The story of Alfred Barnes drew me in both in its own right and also because of the wider ethical issues. And I would love to know what you think. Is art about personal possession or public good?