The Art of the Steal

With The Art of the Steal one is presented with a finely crafted documentary whose beliefs and messages might not necessarily meet the feelings of some reviewers. It tells of the Barnes Collection: a collection of art containing masterpieces by van Gogh, Renoir, etc. The paintings were collected by a billionaire in the 40's named Barnes. Today, the paintings are together worth an estimated 25 billion dollars. During his lifetime, Barnes was bitter towards art critics and the establishment, so he kept his treasures within his house. In the documentary, we see how his collection was "stolen" by the city of Philadelphia. And here's the part I don't agree with. For, Barnes never wanted his art to be seen by rich establishment people. He felt as if they couldn't appreciate the art. So, through a foundation he would have it all preserved within his home and open to a selective group of people. After about thirty years of the foundation within a Barnes-loyal woman, the foundation is handed over to Lincoln University. Barnes had named Lincoln University in his will as a possible inheritor of the foundation. It would have been a real sock-it-to-ya in the 1950's to hand over billions of dollars worth in art to a bunch of negroes. But by the time the art reaches Lincoln, they're practically bankrupt. So, the head of Lincoln parades the art around the world in order to upkeep the collection. This is seen and demonized by the film, for Barnes would not have liked it. To make a long story short, after heaps of legal action against a group Barnes named as inheritors, the art ends up being moved to a Philadelphia run gallery. The Governor Ed Rendell sees this as great, for it will bring much needed tourism to the town and it will allow great art to actually be viewed. The other side (the film's side) sees this as a travesty against Barnes. But I question this travesty. None of the people on film knew Barnes or seem to care so much about a (debatably) violated Will. Rather, they seem upset that it will be used commercially by the city. I question what is wrong with that? What is wrong with making money off of the paintings if it helps the state? Barnes was an elitist who was ashamed of being rich. The people in the film are elitist. Statements arise like "I was afraid what the foundation might do to me" and "THOSE people don't KNOW art". This I cringe at, for it weakens the case for the documentary. If anything, the film exhibits how Barnes was not so smart, for he had an illusion within his mind that the paintings would forevermore be on the walls of his house. But Barnes is dead. The people he hated and didn't want to paintings to go to are dead. Let the art be enjoyed. This is not a bad film despite my problems with it's message. It is admirably passionate while telling a coherent story.
The Art of the Steal: ★★1/2