Bob Dylan, Visions of Johanna
We can no longer find the reference, but we recall film critic Roger Ebert pointing out that great documentaries are anything but objective when he responded to a complaint by a reader. On that score, the Art of the Steal, a documentary about the Barnes Foundation and the decision to move its collection to downtown Philadelphia, is the greatest documentary ever made despite...
The Desktop Guide is Quickly Becoming the Must Have Guide for Nonprofit Executives Jack Siegel's book, A Desktop Guide for Nonprofit Directors, Officers, and Advisors: Avoiding Trouble While Doing Good, has quickly become the go-to guide for nonprofit executives and advisors. So what are people saying about the Guide? In the October 2007 edition of the The Federal Lawyer, New York lawyer George W. Gowen and nonprofit authority, wrote:
Some of our readers have followed the link to the Amazon.com Web site, but apparently have not bought the Guide. If they were turned off by the price, they should reconsider. One prominent attorney in the exempt organization field grabbed a review copy of the Guide and couldn't put it down. She has instructed a number of her clients to buy it, pointing out to them that for less than 1/2 hour of her billable time, they receive a lesson (and resource) that tells it like she would like it told. If you are starting a new charity, the Guide could save you thousands of dollars in legal fees by teaching you how to better utilize your legal counsel and framing the issues so you don't spin your wheels at $400 an hour. |
being long and tedious.
Like Roger Ebert, we have our own views regarding objectivity and accuracy by the media. Our views focus on the news media. Whenever we read an article reporting on a subject that we know something about, we become nervous about relying on all the other articles reporting on matters where we lack some degree of expertise. We were reminded of those concerns as we watched the Art of the Steal.
We know something about the Barnes Foundation and the law covering restricted gifts. We have closely followed the dispute for the last seven or eight years. We have read the case law and lots of articles. We also have visited the foundation. Our prior writings on dispute have even drawn criticism from those who tried to keep the collection in Marion, Pennsylvania.
We would be willing to accept the film as a great documentary if it advanced the public’s understanding of important and recurring issues that go well beyond the Barnes dispute. Unfortunately, the film, with all of its arrogance and hypocrisy, falls way short, doing nothing to advance the ball.
The counterpoint: Only the talking heads shown in the film have the faculties to appreciate the Barnes collection. Talk about the elite and the snobs. These folks are far more concerned about preserving the collection in its present financially unsustainable location than allowing the public they claim to represent to have access to it. The talking heads have hit upon one of the dilemmas that the art world faces: Art is an individual experience, but how can that experience be financed without the funds that come from marketing and hyping it? We all want the solitude to experience the exhibition assembled from collections around the world, but nobody assembles or curates a blockbuster show for just one individual's enjoyment. The documentary would have been far more useful had it explored the contradictions and conflicts that come with trying to increase public interest and appreciation of art.
Now that we have that off our chests, let’s turn to our main point. The makers of the Art of the Steal assume government officials, the local foundations, and the big hitters had an obligation to the Barnes Foundation and Dr. Barnes’ mission. That’s where the non-sequitor exists. The Pew Charitable Trusts, the City of Philadelphia, and the State of Pennsylvania had funds available to rescue the Barnes Foundation from its financial plight. None of these potential funders were obligated to use their funds to further Dr. Barnes intent. They played hardball, which was their right since it was their money that was being used or raised to rescue the collection. Moreover, the film makers incorrectly treat the collection as still belonging to Dr. Barnes and assume that his adherence to his intent must be absolute. While his intent is important, he transferred the art to a charitable foundation. He no longer owns the collection and the foundation is subject to state corporate and federal tax law.
The film portrays Dr. Barnes as a genius for hiring the best lawyer to create a legal structure that would prevent the Philadelphia power structure from undoing his vision. The problem was that the Dr. Barnes and the lawyer apparently didn’t pay enough attention to the size of the foundation’s endowment. The Barnes ran into financial difficulties in large part because Dr. Barnes made the same mistake that countless other visionaries make: He assumed the world would never change once he left the here and now. As a result, his legal structure prevented the foundation’s trustees from responding to changed circumstances. Barnes also incorrectly assumed that the trustee's interests always would mirror his own.
The law is very clear in how it deals with donor intent. So long as the donor’s vision is viable, the law will respect and protect the donor’s intentions, but the law will step in when the circumstances thwart the donor’s intentions by making it impossible to carry them out. The law looks to the doctrines of cy pres and equitable deviation to address the problem. The law’s goal is to prevent waste. That’s exactly what happened in this case. The court did not have the funds to make the impossible possible. Neither did Lincoln University. Those who did have the funds put some condition on the use of their funds. That’s how the world works.
The film is highly critical of Walter Annenberg, who is portrayed as having been obsessed with “stealing” the Barnes collection for the Philadelphia establishment. Toward its end, the film points out that Annenberg left his entire art collection to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City. Ah the irony and the seeming hypocrisy. Dr. Barnes’ intentions should bend to the will of the Philadelphia establishment, but the establishment can do whatever they want with their own assets. We view Mr. Annenberg’s actions differently. He learned a lesson from Dr. Barnes. If there is to be any chance of keeping your collection together in perpetuity, give it to the institution with the strongest endowment.
Dr. Barnes is not without fault. He is a hero to those whose lifelong avocation is challenging the power elite. They trumpet his vision, but they conveniently ignore that he used the collection he assembled—something these outsiders view as so important to mankind—as a weapon against the power elite. Should cultural heritage become the thumb that one man uses to stick in to the eye others? Matisse may have been right that the Barnes Foundation was the only place to see art in America—a quote repeated several times during the course of the film—but a quote (paraphrased here) attributed to de Chirico and not referenced in the film may be the more appropriate one: “Had Dr. Barnes' intent been honored, he would have been buried with his paintings.” de Chirico likely had some personal knowledge to support his statement: He painted a portrait of Dr. Barnes.
Which brings us to the estate tax. We would be willing to bet that more than a few of the talking heads appearing in the Art of Steal would be appalled if the estate tax were permanently repealed (we assume it will be reinstated retroactively). After all, "we" don’t want dynasties and concentration of wealth in America. Yet, isn’t that exactly what happens if we honor Dr. Barnes’ intent? Assets are concentrated and inaccessible to the public.
For us, the film raises interesting dilemmas about art and society, wealth, individual freedom, and control of heritage. Yet, in an effort to create a permanent, biased, and self-righteous record, the makers of the Art of Steal forgo an opportunity to explore these dilemmas and the contradictions they create.
The only redeeming aspect of the Art of the Steal was that it was available through pay-per-view, meaning that we didn’t pay theatre ticket prices to see it.
Internal Revenue Service - Circular 230 Disclosure: As provided for in Treasury regulations, any advice (but none is intended) relating to federal taxes that is contained in this communication is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any plan or arrangement addressed herein.
THE FOREGOING IS NOT AND SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN AS LEGAL ADVICE. IF LEGAL ADVICE IS REQUIRED, THE NONPROFIT OR OTHER PARTY IN QUESTION SHOULD SEEK THE ADVICE OF QUALIFIED LEGAL COUNSEL. If you liked this post, please visit http://www.charitygovernance.com for a description of our training and consulting services. You will also want to acquire a copy of Jack Siegel's book, A Desktop Guide for Nonprofit Directors, Officers, and Advisors: Avoiding Trouble While Doing Good."
Copyright 2010, Charity Governance Consulting LLC. All Rights Reserved. You may not copy any portion of this post to a computer "clipboard" for re-posting anywhere or e-mailing, or otherwise reproduce this post. If you want others to review this post, you may provide them with a link to this web blog. Any use of the material or ideas in this post by reporters or other publishers shall make reference to Jack Siegel, author of "A Guide for Non-Profit Directors, Officers and Advisors: Avoiding Trouble While Doing Good" and this web blog. For additional information call 773-325-2124
