Art of the Steal...Friends of Barnes rebuttal! Vision for Museum's future...

A few weeks ago, I published a post on my review of the well-crafted documentary - The Art of the Steal - which focuses a searing lens on the ongoing controversy over the relocation of the priceless Barnes Art Collection in Philadelphia.

Post: 01/20/10

http://fraudphishing-financialmisdees.blogspot.com/2010/01/art-of-stealbarnes-collection-scandal.html

Shortly after the article was published, I was contacted by a PEW representative, who promptly directed my attention to their rebuttal to allegations that were made in the documentary (which has garnered prizes at festivals around the country) which they have asserted are not true.

Although PEW representatives were contacted by the documentarians and invited to appear on camera to argue the merits of their position, they chose to present their own account of the facts at their web site, to safeguard against potential bias in favor of "The Friends of Barnes Foundation" who they allege have distorted tthe facts to discredit their ambitious plans to "rescue" the priceless art collection.

For good reason, and to be fair to both parties, I penned a second post with the ultimate aim of updating the issues still swirling amidst a cloud of controversy.

In that article, I included Pew's rebuttal, to ensure both sides of the arguments were presented fair and square in the glare of the spotlight.

Post: 01/26/10

http://fraudphishing-financialmisdees.blogspot.com/2010/01/pewrebuttal-on-allegations-theft.html

End of story?  Not quite.

Curiously, this Easter weekend, I received an e-mail from a friend of the "Barnes Foundation" who proceeded to suggest that - in view of the rebuttal I published on behalf of PEW - perhaps I had become blinded.

The individual urged me to click on a link to the "Foundation" site to familiarize myself with a rebuttal they posted in response to PEW's stance on the issues which I previously published as aforementioned herein above.

http://www.barnesfriends.org/files/pew_FAQ.html

In response, I zipped off an e-mail to the individual and noted for the record that I had not become blinded at all.

I enlightened the individual about  the fact that I published PEW's rebuttal - not because I was behind their cause necessarily - but to be fair in my reports (only that).

In addition, I pointed out that - personally - I preferred the collection remain where it has been housed for decades pursuant to the wishes of Mr. Barnes on his deathbed and by virtue of a binding codicil.

In a follow-up communication - captioned "resolution" - the "friend" shared their vision of a possible outcome.

"Vision" for a "resolution" proposed by the " Barnes Foundation":

"As to a resolution, may I share my personal vision?"


"It is the Barnes in Merion, intact forever, but as a satellite of the PMA, much as the Cloisters to the Met in New York"


"A great little electric shuttle bus runs between the two places via the glorious ride along the Schuylkill and through glorious Fairmount Park. In all of 12 minutes, people can get from the Parkway to the Barnes gates."


"The City of Philadelphia can feel it has captured the treasured collection, but without wrecking the place and spending hundreds of millions for a replica."


"The rest of the vision is that the Merion site becomes a National Historical Landmark and someone applies for World Heritage status on its behalf."


"Some people will scream blue murder at an affiliation with PMA, but scores of others will rejoice."

"Fully embracing the real thing and making sure it is there for the benefit of future generations is a much better course than the current one, which places the Barnes in peril."

WHAT A GREAT VISION, EH?

I pray - along with the "Friends of Barnes" - that, God willing, it may become reality!

________________________________________________________

PEW REBUTTAL

________________________________________________________

FAQS

The Pew Charitable Trusts Role in the Barnes Foundation Move

Organization: The Pew Charitable Trust

The Pew Charitable Trusts has provided support to the Barnes Foundation as part of our longstanding commitment to protecting and preserving cultural treasures held in the public trust.

Most recently, we have taken great pride in serving as an advocate and fundraiser for the Barnes as it plans to relocate its world-class art collection from suburban Lower Merion, Pennsylvania, to a new location on Philadelphia’s Benjamin Franklin Parkway.

Below are some of the most frequently asked questions about Pew’s role with the Barnes Foundation.

Q: Why is the Barnes Foundation moving?

A: The Barnes Foundation is moving its gallery from Lower Merion to Center City Philadelphia as the only feasible solution to severe and chronic financial problems. If these problems had remained unaddressed, the Foundation would have been unable to pay its bills.

The physical security of the individual artworks and the integrity of the collection as a whole would have been at risk.

Q: What is Pew’s role with regard to the Barnes Foundation?

A: Pew’s role has been as an advocate and fundraiser. We, along with other donors, helped to raise $150 million (which includes our own funds) to build a new facility in Philadelphia, relocate the collection and establish an endowment to ensure the Foundation’s future security.

In addition, Pew provided interim operating support, enabling the Foundation to stay open in its Merion location.

We acted not only to sustain the Barnes in the short term, but also to help put it on sound financial footing for generations to come, and as an independent institution accessible to all audiences, as Dr. Barnes wished.

Q: How much has Pew contributed to the Barnes Foundation.

A: Pew has made grants totaling $24,350,000 to support the Barnes Foundation, which includes $20 million to support the costs related to the new facility.

Q: Was Pew motivated to meet a test required for public charity status?

A: Pew’s role with the Barnes was neither motivated by nor necessary for our application to become a public charity.

Our work with the Barnes Foundation was one of four examples we included in our Form 1023 petition of Pew’s ability to attract public support.

The examples were chosen from a long list of qualifying projects. Pew qualified as a public charity irrespective of our work for the Barnes.

Q: Does Pew have any control or a governing role with the Barnes?
Q: Did Pew set out to take over the Barnes?

A: No. The Barnes Foundation is led by an independent board of trustees.

The Barnes came to us after determining that its very existence was threatened and that it could not accomplish its mission or survive in its Merion location.

We agreed, and provided much-needed support for its operations and long-term plan.

Pew is not involved in operating the Barnes Foundation and we are not represented on the Barnes board.

Q: Does Pew have any control or ownership of the Barnes artwork?

A: Absolutely not.

Pew does not have any ownership of or control over the Barnes Foundation or its collection of artwork.

Control over the assets and programs of the Barnes remains vested exclusively in its board.

Q: Aren’t Pew & others unfaithful to Barnes' intentions by moving the collection?

A: Rarely reported, the governing document establishing the Barnes Foundation states that if the Foundation were no longer financially stable and needed to move, it would have the option to do so.

The Montgomery County Orphan’s Court granted the Barnes Foundation request to relocate the art collection after years of litigation and weeks of hearings.

The judge carefully reviewed the alternatives and agreed that the move to downtown Philadelphia was the best solution to the severe problems facing the Barnes Foundation.

Q: Why didn’t Pew participate in Art of the Steal (documentary).

A: We learned that the film was going be severely biased. Given our institutional commitment to the facts and quality information, we decided it would be inappropriate to participate.

______________________________________________________________

FRIENDS OF BARNES FOUNDATION REBUTTAL

Friends of the Barnes Foundation

F.A.Q.

Friends of the Barnes Answers Pew’s Frequently Asked Questions

Recently, The Pew Charitable Trusts posted on its website Frequently Asked Questions about its role in the Barnes Foundation controversy. Friends of the Barnes Foundation responds below.

Friends of the Barnes is dedicated to permanent preservation of the Barnes Foundation in its historic setting in Merion, Pennsylvania. We question Pew’s policy promoting the use of over $200,000,000 to erect a replica Barnes art gallery less than five miles away from the functioning, restored original.

We believe that people of good will, who respect donor intent and understand the unique historical and cultural significance of the Barnes, can work together to keep the Foundation intact in Merion, as intended by its donor, Dr. Albert Barnes.

The Barnes can be sustained financially in Merion by instituting sound management practices, expanding its attendance (supported by the local community) and undertaking a serious fundraising campaign.

This would result in a secure institution without wasting hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer money and private philanthropy, which could be put to better use elsewhere.

Pew would be celebrated by the arts, culture, and historic preservation communities around the world if it supported preservation, rather than replication, of the Barnes and honored the donor’s intent, just as it does with the legacy of the Pew family.

1) Q: Why is the Barnes Foundation moving?

Pew response: The Barnes Foundation is moving its gallery from Lower Merion to Center City Philadelphia as the only feasible solution to severe and chronic financial problems.

If these problems had remained unaddressed, the Foundation would have been unable to pay its bills. The physical security of the individual artworks and the integrity of the collection as a whole would have been at risk.

FBF response: The plan to move the Barnes art collection was developed by Pew and other powerful interests in Philadelphia, who want a replica Barnes to be part of Philadelphia’s “museum row,” even though it already exists as a nearby, easily accessible cultural destination. (*1) Pew’s plan to use hundreds of millions of dollars to exploit the Barnes art collection as a “product” for Philadelphia tourism (*2) would destroy a cultural and historical resource revered throughout the world.

Funding a shuttle bus to the Barnes would exhibit good stewardship and save over $150,000,000 in public and private funding.

No attempt was made to explore alternatives to the move. In his Opinion, Presiding Orphan’s Court Judge Stanley Ott stated: “The move to Philadelphia has been floated as the only lifeboat in the entire sea….” (*3)

A $50,000,000 bond offer was made by Montgomery County to ensure the Barnes endowment and stabilize the Barnes finances, but it was rejected out of hand by the Barnes Board before architects had even been selected for the Philadelphia project. (*4)

2) Q: What is Pew’s role with regard to the Barnes Foundation?

Pew response: Pew’s role has been as an advocate and fundraiser.

We, along with other donors, helped to raise $150 million (which includes our own funds) to build a new facility in Philadelphia, relocate the collection and establish an endowment to ensure the Foundation’s future security.

In addition, Pew provided interim operating support, enabling the Foundation to stay open in its Merion location.

We acted not only to sustain the Barnes in the short term, but also to help put it on sound financial footing for generations to come, and as an independent institution accessible to all audiences, as Dr. Barnes wished.

FBF response: Through its Agreement with the Barnes and Lenfest Foundations, Pew has underwritten the dismantling of the Barnes Foundation from the inside out. Pew has championed the move in the absence of any evidence that it would put the Barnes on sound financial footing.

Oddly, although Pew conducts hundreds of studies every year, neither Pew nor any other entity has conducted a feasibility study to determine the financial viability or sustainability of a Parkway Barnes.

3) Q: How much has Pew contributed to the Barnes Foundation?

Pew response: Pew has made grants totaling $24,350,000 to support the Barnes Foundation, which includes $20 million to support the costs related to the new facility.

FBF response: Pew contributed over $1,000,000 for legal fees to break the Barnes Foundation Indenture of Trust. (*5)

In addition, Pew has contributed to a disinformation campaign about the Barnes, misleading the public about its role in the move, misconstruing the intent of Albert Barnes, and obfuscating what the Barnes Foundation actually is.

It is worth noting that an appropriation passed the Pennsylvania Senate in 2002 for Pennsylvania taxpayers to make a contribution of $107,000,000 to the project. (*6) All of the major parties involved, including Pew, deny having known about the appropriation.

4) Q: Was Pew’s involvement in the relocation of the Barnes Foundation gallery motivated by its desire to meet the public support test required to attain public charity status?

Pew response: Pew’s role with the Barnes was neither motivated by nor necessary for our application to become a public charity. Our work with the Barnes Foundation was one of four examples we included in our Form 1023 petition of Pew’s ability to attract public support.

The examples were chosen from a long list of qualifying projects. Pew qualified as a public charity irrespective of our work for the Barnes.

FBF response: The record speaks for itself. Pew’s 2002 application to the IRS for changing from a private foundation to a public charity emphasizes its self-proclaimed role for “planning and coordinating” the Barnes project. (*7)

Yet, in her testimony in Orphans’ Court in 2003, Pew CEO Rebecca Rimel said that the Pew’s proposed work on the Barnes project was “irrelevant” to its application to the IRS. (*8)

5) Q: Does Pew have any control of or governing role with the Barnes Foundation? Did Pew set out to take over the Barnes?

Pew response: No. The Barnes Foundation is led by an independent board of trustees.

The Barnes came to us after determining that its very existence was threatened and that it could not accomplish its mission or survive in its Merion location.

We agreed, and provided much-needed support for its operations and long-term plan. Pew is not involved in operating the Barnes Foundation and we are not represented on the Barnes board.

FBF response: Pew exerts its control and influence through money.

In the Barnes case, Pew went further, actually requiring the right of final approval over Board members to “ensure the success of their charitable investment.”(*9)

The formerly independent Barnes Trustees were nominated by Lincoln University, which was bought off with a pledge of $80,000,000 in taxpayer funds by Governor Rendell and the expanded Barnes Board left the Lincoln nominees in a minority role.(*10)

The result is a stacked Board lacking fidelity to the Barnes Trust but instead fully committed to the goal of Pew, Rendell, and Philadelphia’s commercial interests to move the Barnes art collection to Philadelphia.

The takeover is described by former Pennsylvania Attorney General D. Michael Fisher (currently Federal Judge for the Third Circuit) in the documentary, The Art of the Steal:

It was pretty clear to me that they (the philanthropic institutions championing the move) weren't going to give 50, 70, 100 million dollars without getting control of the Barnes board.

I had to explain to them (Lincoln University’s Board of Trustees) that maybe the Attorney General's office would have to take some action involving them that might have to change the complexion of the board.

Whether I said that directly or I implied it, I think that they finally got the message. (*11)

6) Q: Does Pew have any control or ownership of the Barnes Foundation’s artwork?

Pew response: Absolutely not.

Pew does not have any ownership of or control over the Barnes Foundation or its collection of artwork. Control over the assets and programs of the Barnes remains vested exclusively in its board.

FBF response: Who controls the Barnes Board and the Barnes finances controls the Barnes artwork. (See number [5] above re: the Barnes Board.) A threat to the Barnes art collection was revealed in Pew’s 2002 Agreement with the Barnes, which requires a policy for lending artwork.

This contradicts the stated intentions of Albert Barnes and is inconsistent with the educational mission of the Barnes Foundation.

Note: Two major players in the plan to move the Barnes art collection are H.F. Gerry Lenfest, current President of Board of the Philadelphia Museum of Art and Raymond Perelman, who formerly held that post.

7) Q: Aren’t Pew and others being unfaithful to Dr. Barnes’s intentions by moving the collection?

Pew response: Rarely reported, the governing document establishing the Barnes Foundation states that if the Foundation were no longer financially stable and needed to move, it would have the option to do so.

The Montgomery County Orphan’s Court granted the Barnes Foundation request to relocate the art collection after years of litigation and weeks of hearings.

The judge carefully reviewed the alternatives and agreed that the move to downtown Philadelphia was the best solution to the severe problems facing the Barnes Foundation.

FBF response: There is no clause in the Barnes Indenture about moving the art collection (*12) and the legal proceedings were a charade.(*13)

The only party with standing to challenge the move was the PA Attorney General, who was repeatedly chastised by Judge Ott for not doing his job.(*14)

The donor’s intent is perfectly clear: Albert Barnes wanted his foundation to remain intact in Merion, as evidenced in the Indenture of Trust, his writings and testimony.(*15)

This intention is reiterated in a recent letter to the Barnes Foundation from the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission: “The property was designed to function as an integrated education system reflecting Dr. Barnes’ ideas of education in art and aesthetics using the building, collection and landscape.” (*16)

The Barnes Foundation is eligible to be a National Historic Landmark, the highest level of cultural and historical significance bestowed by the United States government, but only if it remains intact in Merion.

8) Q: Why didn’t Pew participate in The Art of the Steal, the documentary about the Barnes Foundation?

Pew response: We learned that the film was going be severely biased. Given our institutional commitment to the facts and quality information, we decided it would be inappropriate to participate

FBF Response: The Art of the Steal is based on interviews with dozens of people and extensive research.

It shows that a consortium of political, commercial, and philanthropic interests, including The Pew Charitable Trusts, worked together to violate the Indenture of Albert Barnes in order to move the Barnes art collection to Philadelphia.

According to the filmmakers, their numerous invitations to Pew to participate were declined.(*17).

Pew’s refusal indicates that they will not participate in a project over which they cannot exert control.

NOTES

1- “Even before I got to the big wrought-iron gate, two myths had been shattered. The Barnes Foundation… is often portrayed as both hard to get to and the bane of its neighbors in Merion, a wealthy old suburb of Philadelphia. In fact, from 30th Street Station in Philadelphia, the train to Merion took precisely 11 minutes. From there, it was a short walk to the Barnes — and nearly every house I passed had the same sign on its lawn: ‘The Barnes Belongs in Merion’." Fred A. Bernstein, “Timeless Art Frozen in Time (for now),” The New York Times, June 23, 2006.

2- Moving the Barnes art collection is an essential part of Pew’s vision for Philadelphia. In a Wall Street Journal interview, Pew CEO Rebecca Rimel explained, “Philadelphia will keep its nose up if it has more product to offer."

Rimel envisions a day when art-lovers will plan visits to Philadelphia and make side trips to New York, instead of vice versa.

The Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Museum of Modern Art are rich, she concedes, ‘but there is no collection like the Barnes Collection.’" Judith H. Dobrzynski, Cultural Conversation with Rebecca W. Rimel : A Foundation Head Central to the Philadelphia Story, Wall Street Journal Online, February 8, 2007.

3- Memorandum Opinion and Order Sur Second Amended Petition to Amend Charter and Bylaws, January 29, 2004, p. 20.

4- "By letter dated June 18, 2007, Dr. Watson dismissed Montgomery County’s offer out of hand reaffirming the Barnes commitment, not to its indenture or fiduciary responsibilities, but to its “mission,” namely, the move to Philadelphia.

Then, claiming that the Barnes has previously considered all “reasonable proposals presented to us,” Dr. Watson failed to set forth what was unreasonable about the proposal.

Fiduciary responsibility requires the Barnes Board to explore proposals such as the financing plan presented by Montgomery County.

In fact, the Barnes Board should have initiated that proposal.... Dr. Watson mischaracterized what has occurred to date as “binding commitments” which make the move of the gallery collection to Philadelphia “irreversible.”

To the contrary, nothing that the Barnes Foundation has done is binding, nor is it irreversible. No architect has been selected. No city site is available.

There are no architectural plans.

There is no feasibility study. The fundraising is not complete.

Costs continue to escalate. The Board is not in place.

The Barnes cannot claim that it has relied on prior Court rulings to its detriment.

An elementary understanding of fiduciary responsibility would have compelled Dr. Watson and his Board to explore Montgomery County’s offer as it was clear that this Court simply permitted the move as one alternative. It did not mandate the move."

Petition to Reopen Proceedings, August 27, 2007, pp. 66-68, available here.

5- Rebecca Rimel testified in Court, “I am not familiar with the actual Indenture.” Testimony of Rebecca Rimel in Orphan’s Court, In Re: The Barnes Foundation, A Corporation, December 11, 2003, pp. 56-57.

This is convenient, because anyone familiar with Dr. Albert Barnes’ intent for his foundation knows that the move is everything he would not want.

6- S.B. 1213 The Pennsylvania capital budget for the fiscal year 2001-2002, includes $100,000,000 for “Design and Construction of a Museum Facility to House the Barnes Art Collection” and $7,000,000 for “Restoration, Stabilization and Site Enhancements for the Barnes Foundation.

7- Internal Revenue Service Application of The Pew Charitable Trust for Public Charity Status, filed December 30, 2002.

8- Testimony of Rebecca Rimel in Orphan’s Court, In Re: The Barnes Foundation, A Corporation, December 11, 2003, pp. 29-30.

9- Agreement between and among the Barnes Foundation, the Pew Charitable Trusts and the Lenfest Foundation, September 13, 2002. p. 8.

10- See Patricia Horn, “The Deal of the Art,” The Philadelphia Inquirer, May 22, 2005.

11- “The Art of the Steal” a documentary film, produced by 9.14 Pictures: Sheena M. Joyce, Producer, Lenny Feinberg, Executive Producer, Don Argott, Director, 2009.

12- The only such reference in the Indenture of Trust: “11.

Should the said collection ever be destroyed, or should it for any other reason become impossible to administer the trust hereby created concerning said collection of pictures, then the property and funds contributed by Donor to Donee shall be applied to an object as nearly within the scope herein indicated and laid down as shall be possible, such application to be in connection with an existing and organized institution then in being and functioning in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, or its suburbs.”

Indenture of Trust of the Barnes Foundation (Article IX of the By-laws of the Barnes Foundation), December 6, 1922, as amended.

13 - There was no adversarial process, so the judge heard no testimony about the Barnes Board’s breach of fiduciary responsibility, its multiple conflicts of interest, or efforts to misappropriate the valuable Barnes art collection.

14- In his opinion, Judge Ott wrote: “The Attorney General, as parens patriae for charities, had an absolute duty to probe, challenge and question every aspect of the monumental changes now under consideration…

The Attorney General was the only party with the authority to demand, via discovery or otherwise, information about other options.

However, the Attorney General did not proceed on its authority and even indicated its full support for the petition before the hearings took place…. The Attorney General's Office merely sat as second chair to counsel for The Foundation, cheering on its witnesses. . . . [This] course of action . . . prevented the court from seeing a balanced, objective presentation of the situation, and constituted an abdication of that office's responsibility….” Memorandum Opinion and Order Sur Second Amended Petition to Amend Charter and Bylaws, pp. 20-21, January 29, 2004.

15- The Barnes Foundation, with its interrelated parts – remarkable art collection (housed in a purpose-built gallery) and historic arboretum – was created, as Albert Barnes explained, for “one and the same purpose (that) cannot be separated: they are one and indivisible and both are educational in their essence…. …”

He compared the Foundation to a symphony, “that is, every unit was studied in relation to what was the ultimate composite entity which prompted us to establish the Foundation and devote our money and the rest of our individual lives to make the Foundation the servant of educational authorities in advancing the knowledge and happiness of mankind.”

Testimony of Albert C. Barnes, p. 1.From the case, Barnes Foundation v. Keely et al., Appellants No. 268 Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, January 30, 1934. Testimony in Arboretum Archives File in the Barnes Foundation Archives.

16- Letter from Jean H. Cutler, Director, Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Bureau for Historic Preservation, to Bernard C. Watson, Chairman of the Board, Barnes Foundation, January 19, 2010.

17- Scott Macaulay, “Art After Death,” Filmmaker, Winter, 2010.

Help stop the move of the Barnes Foundation art collection.

Join Friends of the Barnes Foundation at www.barnesfriends.org.

Make a tax deductible contribution and make a difference.

Email: barnesfriends@comcast.net

Write:

Post Office Box 35
Merion Station, PA 19066

http://www.thetattler.biz

0 comments

The Art of the Steal...Barnes Collection scandal! Power & greed saga in Philadelphia...

Matisse painting at heart of power struggle!

The "Art of the Steal" is an absorbing tale about the intrigues surrounding a billion-dollar art collection, the astute art-lover who painstakingly pieced the celebrated canvasses together over the course of his idyllic life, and a gang of big-city culture thugs out to wrest the spoils of his labor from their resting place in a gem of a museum with the express intent of capitalizing on the masterpieces.

Of course, I am referring to the Barnes collection of post-impressionist paintings, which is second to none anywhere on the planet.

In spite of the fact the documentary (prouduced by 9.14 pictures) is fairly pedestrian in approach (with occasional creative flourishes here and there to break the monotony) it is the subject matter that is downright fascinating.

I should preface this post by noting that I started my professional career as a "painter".

During my teens and twenties (during a particularly creative period) I exhibited a series or two of  abstract-expressionist paintings and fine line drawings in a myriad of art institutions; hence, I have first-hand knowledge of the gallery and museum scene.

In a nutshell, the film is basically a morality tale about greed and power.

In the opening scenes, the producers of this slick documentary, introduce filmgoers to Albert C. Barnes, a brilliant academic with a keen eye for art.

Shortly after Dr. Barnes discovered a treatment for veneral disease a few decades ago (by virtue of a drug named Argypol) he proceeded to embark on his quest to start-up a significant art collection from the spoils of his profit-making medical venture.

As luck would have it, Barnes was fortunate to cross paths with a handful of up-and-coming impressionist painters on overseas jaunts to Europe - Picasso and Matisse - for instance.

At a time when the art world - major museums, in particular - were focusing elsewhere on acquisitions for their permanent installations, Barnes snapped up canvasses that appealed to his artistic sensibilities at a time when the market was wide open.

In fact, Barnes - a Johnny-on-the-spot of sorts - was able to snatch up key pieces (best examples of painter's styles) for literally a song.

Once the diverse pieces began to stack up, the visionary collector  proceeded to build a museum to house the one-of-a-kind masterpieces.

The Barnes Foundation was subsequently founded in 1922.

Unlike a museum or gallery that tended to mount canvasses according to style and period, Barnes elected to focus on their stature instead; subsequently, he arranged them according to aesthetic value.

Over time, the walls were adorned with priceless works, he literally hung himself.

As a result, scholars collectors and academics hailed the museum  setting as a remarkable personal cultural experience.

From the start, Barnes vowed to cause an uproar in the social circles he abhorred.

Of course, that  didn't curry much favor with the Philadelphia elite who were the target of his acid barbs.

For example, he accused Philadelphia insiders of running a house of artistic and intellectual prostitution.

So, early on, Barnes created arch foes who plotted against him, thereafter.

A handful of his most staunch critics responded, for instance, by denouncing his paintings as "nasty" "debased" works of art that were downright "primitive".

For this reason, the discerning collector - with amazing taste - taunted his rivals to just try to get their hands on his priceless collection (which an Investure Trust would protect from beyond the grave in the event of his untimely demise. Or, so he thought).

It must have stung his harshest opponents when Matisse opined:

"The Barnes Museum is the only sane place in America to view art."

The collection boasts Cezanne's renowned "Card Players", a handful of exquisite Serault models, Matisse's remarkable LA DANCE (possibly worth a billion plus dollars in value if not simply priceless), and numerous Picassos, Van Goghs, etc.

In his mind, Barnes envisioned (and thereafter created &  sustained) an institution where students could study, art-lovers teach, and collectors indulge their artistic sensibilities.

The fussy connoisseur expected to raise the bar in respect to - not only the value of art - but its purpose in daily life.

Unfortunately, over time, Barnes incurred the wrath of a handful of the local power elite.

For starters, he began to bump heads with Walter Annenberg and his family, which owned the all-powerful mainstay daily in Philadelphia.

When Moses Annenberg (allegedly a gangster) was brought up on charges of tax evasion, Barnes ridiculed son Walter about his father's shortcomings.

Walter Annenberg never forgave the democrats for pursing his father so relentlessly, either.

Barnes didn't help matters when he posted notices around the museum which labelled his enemies basic whores and exploiters of art out for vulgar personal, professional, and monetary gains.

He slurred the locals when he referred to Philadelphia as an intellectual slum (which didn't help matters much after that).

Early on, two or three days during the course of the week were slated for art classes, while the  remaining few were allotted for public visits by art-lovers, collectors, and scholars (by appointment.only)

After Barnes died suddenly in a fatal auto crash and the museum directorship was handed over to one of his dedicated disciples - Violette De Mazia (a good friend & confidante) - Annenberg and the Philadelphia Inquirer began to criticize the museum (going so far as to allege that the Barnes facility was not meeting its mandate pursuant to its tax exempt status).

Angered at what they viewed as a snobby attitude about art and the institution that housed it, critics conspired to break down the halls, and go for control of the celebrated collection.

Shortly after a newspaper article reported that the Barnes Museum was violating its tax status, the museum relented and began to schedule regular viewings for tourists, art lovers, and the like (who pined to get inside the doors and gaze upon the priceless works of art).

At this juncture, what was once a peaceful setting in the suburbs, erupted into a a storm of controversy when busloads of art-lovers and lookie-loo's roared into the neighborhood and upset the once-tranquil historic streets.

Enemies rubbed their hands with glee; after all, they were plotting to shut-down the museum.

Ah, just the ammunition they needed!

In addition to the neighborhood problems surfacing daily, opponents argued that unless authorities stepped in and took charge, the rare collection would be at risk of damage since the old museum was allegedly in a bad state of disrepair.

Their vision?

A permanent installation at the Philadelphia Art Gallery downtown.

Although some thought the "Barnes Investure" was iron clad, there was a loophole which the enemies of Barnes blasted wide open.

Violette de Mazia faithfully remained at the helm for about thirty years and carried out Barnes' wishes to a "t".

Indeed, the Museum flourished and gained respect in its capacity as a school and major art collection of undisputed value around the globe under her tutelage.

But, upon her death, the control of the Museum was unfortunately transferred to Lincoln University according to the last wishes of Barnes.

At this juncture, the roof literally tumbled down, when an ambitious lawyer was installed as head of the non-profit foundation.

At his bidding, Annenberg was invited into the fold, and the two began plotting.

Although the will specifically stated that the collection must never be lent out - or be exploited solely to reap financial benefit - the clever lawyer found a technicality to further his cause.

On the grounds that the Museum needed funding for renovations and operating costs, he convinced a court to permit the Barnes Collection to go on tour (which ended up being a landmark Art event of the century which rustled up staggerings profits right out of the starters gate).

Now, the big surge was on to shut down the Barnes Museum and install the collection permanently at the Philaelphia Art Gallery.

Now, things got diabolical, to say the least.

The potboiler shifts into high gear as the documentary focuses on the court proceedings, power-plays made by city officials and the Directors at PEW (one of three foundations now in charge of the Barnes Collection), and the long drawn-out public outcry from Barnes supporters and respected Art establishments around the country.

The documentary catches all the maneuverings - and treacherous transparent plot twists, too - in intense on-the-edge-of-your-seat detail.

Curiously - with exception to  the Mayor - the "bad guys" singled out as the perpetrators of the" largest theft of art in this century" - would not utter a word in their own defense on camera (or even on record for that matter).

Not surprising; after all, the allegations were shocking.

All the documented evidence was pretty incriminating, too

In court, PEW's legal eagles alleged that the sole reason for wanting to transfer the art pieces was due to the fact there were insufficient funds to continue to safely and professionally display the art at the Barnes Museum.

Also, they boldly asserted that the museum could not operate properly because of limitations imposed by the city in respect to viewing hours.

There was also a question raised about insufficient parking.

The Barnes supporters countered that arrangements had been made to extend the hours of daily operation, build a much-needed parking structure, and secure sufficient funds to operate more comfortably.

But, the smoking gun was staggering!

One of the witnesses testified that he uncovered a fund written into the state budget that would provide $100 million dollars for the Barnes to be funded and housed at the Philadelphia Art Museum.

Curiously, the Judge was not informed of this little detail when PEW (and others) originally filed their motion with the court to shut down the Barnes Museum for altruistic reasons.

If there was $100 million in the kitty, obviously there were enough funds available for the Barnes to carry on.

More intriguing perhaps was the disclosure that an investigation was unable to determine - who applied for the $100 million, who approved it, and how it ended up being written into the state budget - with no one's apparent knowledge.

Yes, I suppose God does work in mysterious ways, eh?

But, the plot thickened.

The Barnes ) supporters accused PEW (currently in charge of the Barnes Collection by court order) of making a grab for the Barnes Collection in a deceitful effort to change their private foundation status to a non-profit.

Although PEW denied the charge vehemently, IRS documents confirmed that the Barnes Collection was - in fact - cited as grounds for a change of tax status in their legal paperwork filed with IRS officials.

Although the Barnes supporters were hopeful that the Judge would swing his ruling their way - especially after PEW'S dastardly deeds were reported to the court (with supporting documentary evidence) - the end results were disheartening.

In sum, the Judge ruled that "the friends" of Barnes had no legal standing; consequently, his honor denied their motion (request) to overturn the earlier decision which allowed the collection to be moved lock, stock, and barrel to a new gallery space at the Philadelphia Art Museum.

"They're going to turn it into the McBarnes Collection," some lamented, after the ruling was handed down.

Yup, they intend to serve up the art experience, like fast-food.

To many, the whole cultural experience - until now a unique one at the Barnes Museum - will be lost.

Worse than that, the art  thieves have not only violated Barnes last wishes, but spirited away the collection to bolster their own selfish greedy ends.

In the final analysis, it appears that the high and mighty operate above the law without  fear of recrimination.

In sum, power corrupts!

Portrait of Barnes mulling over his priceless collection!

www.julianayrs.com

________________________________________________________

Footnote

Please note that on the heels of this post being published @ the Tattler - a PEW representative contacted me by e-mail - and noted that the Charitable Trust has posted a rebuttal to the allegations at their web site.

To be fair, I penned an update on the issues, at the Tattler site.

Link:

http://fraudphishing-financialmisdees.blogspot.com/2010/01/pewrebuttal-on-allegations-theft.html

0 comments

PEW...rebuttal on allegations of theft & wrongdoing! Art of the Steal (9.14 films)...

Pew accused of Art theft of century!

Protesters angry with Barnes Museum move!

PEW (a charitable trust) was accused of wrongdoing, the rich and powerful in Philadelphia high society allegedly schemed to carry off the art theft of the century, and friends of a respected collector (Alfred Barnes) rallied in court with cries for mercy (amidst a mountain of scandalous documents which pointed an accusing finger).

The whole tawdry tale was documented recently by 9.14 Films and well-received at a handful of prestigious Film Festivals around the country.

In my review of the "Art of the Steal" - I reported on all the juicy titillating details - which must have driven  my readers into a wild disbelieving frenzy!

Post:  01/20/2010

http://fraudphishing-financialmisdees.blogspot.com/search?q=Art+of+the+Steal

Oh, there was malicious gossip about Moses Annenberg, eye-brow-raising rivalry between son - Walter Annenberg - and the insightful financially-independent art collector (and much to-do about his priceless collection which was at the heart of a great controversy), a lot of back-stabbing, sleuthing, and all-round treacherous behaviour on the part of all the power-players.

Curiously, the alleged perpetrators of the crime, refused to chat on-camera with the filmmakers for some inexplicable reason.

On these occasions, the producers (and "friends of Barnes") offered up publicity stills which - for the most part - were downright unflattering.

While Ray Perelman swirled in intrigue in the shadows, the director of the well-crafted documentary, flashed a photograph on screen which portrayed the man as evil personified.



A PEW representative (a woman) came across as - shrill, haughty, a snob - well, you get the picture!

After a painstaking day or two of drafts, edits, and polishing, I finally posted the Barnes drama on the Tattler web site without much thought.

Another one put to bed!

Curiously, when I was checking e-mail today, I spied a communication from PEW tucked away amidst all the rubble e-mails, sales pitches, spam, and so forth and so on.

In that communication, there was a brief note from a PEW spokesperson, who noted for the record that the Charitable Trust had responded to the allegations on their web site.

Right off-the-bat, PEW asserted that the reason they did not agree to interviews with the film crew for their documentary on the Barnes' issues, was because they anticipated  there would be bias.

Rather than be manipulated, or backed into a corner, I suspect they chose to go their own way.

In response, I contacted the PEW spokesperson and assured the individual that - to be fair - I would post their rebuttal at this site.

I cut their responses and inserted them herein below.

Please note that the questions raised to ferret out the information were posed by PEW and/or their associates (attorneys, whomever) and that my involvement amounted to that of  "messenger" only.

So, don't shoot me, eh?

__________________________________________________________
FAQS

The Pew Charitable Trusts' Role in the Barnes Foundation Move

Organization: The Pew Charitable Trusts

The Pew Charitable Trusts has provided support to the Barnes Foundation as part of our longstanding commitment to protecting and preserving cultural treasures held in the public trust.

Most recently, we have taken great pride in serving as an advocate and fundraiser for the Barnes as it plans to relocate its world-class art collection from suburban Lower Merion, Pennsylvania, to a new location on Philadelphia’s Benjamin Franklin Parkway.

Below are some of the most frequently asked questions about Pew’s role with the Barnes Foundation.

Q: Why is the Barnes Foundation moving?

A: The Barnes Foundation is moving its gallery from Lower Merion to Center City Philadelphia as the only feasible solution to severe and chronic financial problems. If these problems had remained unaddressed, the Foundation would have been unable to pay its bills. The physical security of the individual artworks and the integrity of the collection as a whole would have been at risk.

Q: What is Pew’s role with regard to the Barnes Foundation?

A: Pew’s role has been as an advocate and fundraiser. We, along with other donors, helped to raise $150 million (which includes our own funds) to build a new facility in Philadelphia, relocate the collection and establish an endowment to ensure the Foundation’s future security.

In addition, Pew provided interim operating support, enabling the Foundation to stay open in its Merion location.

We acted not only to sustain the Barnes in the short term, but also to help put it on sound financial footing for generations to come, and as an independent institution accessible to all audiences, as Dr. Barnes wished.

Q: How much has Pew contributed to the Barnes Foundation?

A: Pew has made grants totaling $24,350,000 to support the Barnes Foundation, which includes $20 million to support the costs related to the new facility.

Q: Was Pew motivated to meet a test required for public charity status?

A: Pew’s role with the Barnes was neither motivated by nor necessary for our application to become a public charity. Our work with the Barnes Foundation was one of four examples we included in our Form 1023 petition of Pew’s ability to attract public support.

The examples were chosen from a long list of qualifying projects. Pew qualified as a public charity irrespective of our work for the Barnes.

Q: Does Pew have any control or a governing role with the Barnes? 

Q: Did Pew set out to take over the Barnes?

A: No. The Barnes Foundation is led by an independent board of trustees. The Barnes came to us after determining that its very existence was threatened and that it could not accomplish its mission or survive in its Merion location.

We agreed, and provided much-needed support for its operations and long-term plan.

Pew is not involved in operating the Barnes Foundation and we are not represented on the Barnes board.

Q: Does Pew have any control or ownership of the Barnes  artwork?

A: Absolutely not. Pew does not have any ownership of or control over the Barnes Foundation or its collection of artwork.

Control over the assets and programs of the Barnes remains vested exclusively in its board.

Q: Aren’t Pew & others unfaithful to Barnes' intentions by moving the collection?

A: Rarely reported, the governing document establishing the Barnes Foundation states that if the Foundation were no longer financially stable and needed to move, it would have the option to do so.

The Montgomery County Orphan’s Court granted the Barnes Foundation request to relocate the art collection after years of litigation and weeks of hearings.

The judge carefully reviewed the alternatives and agreed that the move to downtown Philadelphia was the best solution to the severe problems facing the Barnes Foundation.

Q: Why didn’t Pew participate in Art of the Steal (documentary).

A: We learned that the film was going be severely biased. Given our institutional commitment to the facts and quality information, we decided it would be inappropriate to participate.

________________________________________________________

http://www.julianayrs.com

0 comments

Scandals of the Privileged Few! A Novel by Julian Ayrs! Chapter 3!



Robert tossed the newspaper down on the antique oak desk and reflected on the Court's ruling for a moment before jotting down a few salient points he'd argue at his lecture the week next at Harvard.

Justice Roberts got it right.

The outcome rested on constitutional law - even still - the end scenario stank.

It irked Steele that a posse of hateful Christians got a nod from the highest court in the land.

And, the plaintiffs were left to skulk away and lick their wounds.

"Well, it proves that the system works," quipped a senior partner at a lunch earlier that eventful day.

"But, justice wasn't served," a snotty waiter flippantly snipped as he scurried off to take an order at the next table.

Yeah, picketing a funeral - on any grounds - was a pretty despicable act.

Even Roberts - a well-meaning turd - admitted as much as that if you read between the lines.

In the final analysis?

The Supreme Court was forced to recognize that the protesters (headed up by a born-again Christian with all the intelligence of a slug) had a Constitutional right to voice their opinion pursuant to the U.S. Constitution.

In the eyes of decent folks, the Church group’s anti-gay protests at funerals (where picket signs were crudely scrawled with slogans like "God Hates fags" and "Thank God for dead Soldiers”) were sick and in bad taste.

Although their message may have been lacking in any resemblance to the loving God portrayed in the scriptures – or the Lord's message of compassion and understanding and forgiveness – the Supreme Court noted that the bible thumpers observed the laws of the land because they maintained a thousand-foot buffer zone and protested without “physical” violence .

What about the mental and emotional anguish they wrought on innocent mourners, Steele wondered aloud to himself, in total disbelief.

But, there it was, in black and white.

"Even hurtful speech on public issues merits 1st Amendment protection" the Court found (8 in favor and 1 in dissent).

Robert was just putting the finishing touches on his prepared speech when the joyous bells at quaint old St. Mary's chimed!

He glanced at the diamond-encrusted face of his tank watch.

Midnight!

The hours had slipped away into the dead of night without Robert being any-the-wiser.

It was time to pack up his briefcase and head home for a nightcap before tucking in for the night.

Suddenly, it hit him like a ton of bricks.

Tomorrow was Palm Sunday.

It was a toss up.

Should he attend a service at Grace Cathedral - which was obviously going to "play" to a packed house - with a lot of high drama and pomp and circumstance?

Maybe, he should just slip into the oldest Cathedral in the San Francisco - St. Mary’s – instead.

Coincidentally, just a few days ago, Robert received an e-mail from the Church leaders at Grace announcing the launch of their spanking-new web site.

How long would it be before church-goers elected to sleep in Sunday in favor of attending a "virtual" service later in the day when the lingering cobwebs of the all-knowing subsconscious finally surrendered their subjects to the warmth of a lazy sunny day?

Just click on a link - and presto - divulge the innermost secrets of the soul.

Confession!

“Do you suppose those wise old priests are scheming to utilize PayPal to rake in oodles of cash securely online," he joked to his neighbor over the fence as he dashed out to toss the trash in a ubiquitous recycle bin.

"A lot classier than passing around the hat," his neighbor shot back cynically.

Well, that would solve the problem of the snatch-and-grabs (theft) that were proliferating at collection boxes in the dank dark shadows of the grand old Cathedral.

"Until some scam artist from Nigeria hacks the site," Steele chuckled to himself.

Whew, he was tired, and needed a break.

At this juncture, he stretched his arms out high above his head – rolled his back a fraction to get the tension out - then hit the log-off button on his IBM ThinkPad.

Thank God, his Toshiba laptop was stolen.

After all, that unexpected turn-of-events ended up being a blessing in disguise.

But, the mugging was disturbing, nonetheless.

For years, Robert felt totally secure (and safe) residing on the West Coast in the tony climbs of sophisticated San Francisco.

Then, one night after a chat with friends over coffee at Serendipity - out-of-the-blue - three thugs dashed up from behind him on the dimly-lit street and snatched his laptop right out of his fine-boned hands.

"Heh," he cried out in shock, as they dashed down the street at breakneck speed.

At this point, Robert literally froze on the spot, as he watched the thieving trio disappear down a side street and into a dark alley.

For a moment, he was tempted to give them a merry chase.

But, he had second thoughts, after an inner voice cautioned against it.

Just maybe, the toughs were trying to lure him into an out-of-the-way spot, so they could steal his wallet and relieve him of his diamond ring and gold crucifix?

Oh well, good riddance!

Up until that point, Steele had been experiencing quite a few headaches, because of a handful of nasty glitches which were driving him over the edge.

In fact, the busy lawyer found himself spending more time editing his copy - than drafting his legal papers - that's how bad the word processing end got.

Shabby poorly-designed software was the culprit.

For example, the cursor on the Best Buy El Cheapo special, often hopped around the screen at whim.

Damn annoying!

In high school, he distinctly recalled that his teacher always hammered into him the importance of not looking at the copy or the keys when transcribing material from from one location to another.

"If you look back and forth, you'll develop a bad habit. And, you'll never learn to type properly, only hen and pick," Miss Fraser instructed daily from her podium at the front of the cramped school room at Humberside High.

Looking back, he recalled that he had a bit of a crush on the pretty young blond with the dazzling come-hither look.

Unfortunately, one day one of the bullies in class was inclined to embarrass the heck out of her, just to be mean.

He was a total asshole,

For example, during the second semester the rumor-mill started to spread a nasty piece of gossip.

Miss Fraser got knocked up!

Uh-huh!

To make matters worse, the joker hatched up an idea to put her on the hot seat, go figure!

"By the way,” he started off slowly at the end of class.

“Is it Miss or Missus,” he blurted out with a smirk on his acne-ridden face.

The silence in the aftermath was so loud, and awkward, it was deafening.

Without skipping a beat, Ms. Fraser reacted, just as her face turned beet red.

"Miss."

The insensitive bastard let out a guffaw, then recoiled in horror, as the rest of the class angrily stared him down.

After all, Ms. Fraser was one of the school’s favorite teachers, who was well-liked.

How cruel.

Shortly after that, in the last phase of her pregnancy, Ms. Fraser departed from the school without saying good-bye.

Yup.

One rainy day, some grey-haired old spinster gruffly strode in the room, and ordered us to turn to page fifty-six for the next lesson without so much as a “how are you, kids?"

Typing class was never the same after that.

But, in retrospect, the snappy dresser was glad he took typing - instead of the other option (Latin).

"That was before the advent of computer laptops. Who knew how important it would be to type proficiently? To most of the guys, it was the pussy's way out, to rustle up a decent credit to get by in High School," Robert recalled jokingly to one of his work-out buddies.

I wonder what ever happened to Ms. Fraser, he wondered to himself years later.

______________________________________________________


The hike up the steep hill to Grace Cathedral was an arduous one.

But, it was that, or circling for a half-hour-or-so to find parking.

With gas at $4.59 a gallon, Robert didn't fancy springing a sawbuck on a trip to the Palm Sunday celebration in his sleek black SUV.

By the time he crested the top of Nob Hill, he was quite noticeably out-of-breath, though.

"Okay. Okay. Okay," he uttered up under his breath in his best Joe Pesci impression.

His work schedule had been hectic, and he had let the treadmill - and daily work-outs at the gym – fall by the wayside.

Steele was paying big-time for that act of laziness now, alright, as he struggled to regain his breath.

But, come Monday, he was going to hop to it, and get his cardio vascular pumping and in tip-top shape once again.

If it killed him!

The service at Grace Cathedral wasn't going to rev up for about ten minutes or so, so Robert took a detour through the well-manicured park across the street, where the locals walked their rambunctious dogs, elderly Asian men and women practiced Tai Chi at the crack of dawn, and singles on the prowl occasionally strolled with an eye towards a hook up.

He always marveled at the delightful fountain situated in the center of park - which glistened today - in the early-morning light.

If Huntington Park’s spiffy “waterworks” looked familiar, it was for obvious reasons.

The landmark is a replica of  an Italian fountain – “Fontana delle Tartarughe" – gracing the Piazza Mattei in Rome.

The original was designed in 1581 by Giacomo della Porta and featured bronze figures sculpted by a craftsman by the name of Taddeo Landini.

The beautiful centerpiece was originally known as the "Fountain of Dolphins" because it exalted slender bronze youths riding dolphins.

Gian Lorenzo Bernini added a humorous - magical touch - when he incorporated tortoises when the fountain was overhauled in 1658-59.

The four Croker children - prominent long-time residents on tony Nob Hill - donated the dazzling sculpture to the City of San Francisco in 1954.

Today, there was an exhibition of sculpture on display, which complemented the scenic grounds in the heart of the city.

Steele was particularly drawn to the work of Scott Roach and its obvious tribal art influences.

Unfortunately, a couple of the artists lacked the know-how - or literary skills - to properly promote their art in the hand-outs that were distributed to art-lovers who stopped by to chat.

On occasion, the mission statements were bang on, though.

James Moore, another talented sculpture, underscored his keen efforts to employ powerful visual vocabularies based on the cube to represent the human form.

"When the rules of proportion and balance are applied, the resulting works capture what I see as the essence of graceful and playful movement and gesture."

His stick figures - one titled "Leap of Faith" – tossed the spotlight on his light touch, sense of humor, and unique crafting and construction skills.

None of the pieces would shake up the art world, unfortunately.

An old expression sprang to mind.

"I don't know much about art, but I know what I like."

When some fool uttered up a comment like that - an artist friend of Robert's - would invariably laugh out loud.

"Yeah, just betcha, they're the kind of folks who love black velvet paintings."

"Leslie, stop. That's rude, they'll hear you," Robert would urge in a polite hushed voice.

It was embarrassing the way the robust happy-go-lucky painter scoffed at potential patrons.

"It's your role to educate and enlighten," Steele teased in a sly effort to smooth the waters.

Les was the kind of artist who would rather starve - than sell a painting to some moron with big bucks - who he felt didn't deserve a passionate creation drummed up from the very depths of his artful soul!

"Boy, you wouldn't have survived in the middle ages," Robert lightly scolded.

"To survive in that era, artists were required to flatter their wealthy patrons with appealing likenesses, or be forced to live in the poor house.”

Indeed, quite a few of those wealthy old dames were ugly as sin, but you'd never know it by their celebrated portraits hanging in world-class collections at top-notch museums and prestigious art galleries around the globe.

In retrospect, you had to wonder, how Picasso ever got away with depicting Gertrude Stein as the old shrew that she was, without being banished from her elite powerful inner circle.

Personally, Robert preferred landscapes - the Hudson School, for instance - and Canada's group of seven.

Steele pined for the day when his walls would be graced with a Lauren Harris or Emily Carr.

“I’ll have to start chasing ambulances and representing clients in the insurance-industry-racket to afford it,” he ruefully complained to his friends.

________________________________________________________


When Robert dashed into Grace Cathedral, a line was forming at one end, where the faithful waited patiently to follow the Choir down the aisle with reeds in hand during the Palm Sunday celebration.

One of the priests informed him that there were a few seats available in the pews, so he snatched up the program, and slipped into seat a-dozen-or-so rows from the front of the Cathedral.

Funny that!

There was always a good turn-out on Christmas (for midnight Mass, in particular) and Easter, the two holiest occasions on the church calendar, each year.

Did Christians feel guilty if they failed to observe the birth and death of Jesus?

Were those faithful moments expected to book-end their dreary little lives, and curry favor with the Lord?

Or, were they the meek simply bowing to peer pressure?

If Steele neglected to attend service regularly, it was because of a growing trend at the Church, he was not in accord with.

At Grace, there were quite a few females preaching, which made him a tad uncomfortable.

A phrase from the Bible loomed large in his mind in that regard.

"The Whore of Babylon."

If Robert recalled correctly from his Sunday school classes, the "Whore" was associated with the "Antichrist and the Beast" referred to in the Book of Revelations ( and the allegorical kingdom).

According to the prophecies in the final chapter of the Holy Scriptures, the apocalyptic downfall of the "Whore" unfolds in the hands of the beast with seven heads and ten horns.

Robert reached for a copy of the St. James bible on the bookshelf and perused the passages to refresh his failing memory.

The Holy Scriptures / Revelations

17:4

And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet color, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication.

17:5

And upon her forehead was a name written:

Mystery, Babylon the Great, Mother of the Harlots
(Abominations of Earth)

17:6

And, I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus.
And, when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.

17:9

And, here is the mind which hath wisdom.
The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sitteth.

17:10

And there are seven kings:
Five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come
And, when he cometh, he must continue a short space.

17:11

And, the beast that was, and is not,
Even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition

17:12

And, the ten horns which thou saw are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet;
But, receive power as kings one hour with the beast.

17:15

And, they saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest
Where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes
And nations, and tongues

17:18

And the woman which thou sawest is that great city
Which reigneth over the kings of the earth.

Biblical scholars commonly used the phrase "Whore of Babylon" to refer to the Roman Catholic Church.

Reformation writers who taught these associations included respected Martin Luther (1483–1546), John Calvin (1509–1564), and John Knox (1510–1572)

Supporters often quoted the following verses from Revelations 17:5 to describe her:

"And on her forehead a name was written"

"Mystery, Babylon of the Great, Mother of Harlots"
(Abominations of the Earth)

A harlot is representative of a church that has been unfaithful,

"The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and precious stones and pearls, having in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the filthiness of her fornication."
Understandably, Steele felt more comfortable with a male presiding over the services, as a matter of personal preference.

Go figure!

Female doctors gave Steele the willies, too.

However, some dudes warm up to the idea of a physical - or prostate check - with a pretty young intern at the – um – helm.

Was Steele a male chauvinist pig?

No, it all went back to his childhood - the way he was raised, his faith, and that sort-of-thing.

Curiously, a few weeks prior, Steele attended a service at Grace - the “Contemplative Eucharis” - which was held early in the evening at 6 p.m. on a Sunday evening.

It was an intimate affair, where two dozen or so parishioners formed a circle on the labyrinth, near the entrance of the Cathedral.

Shortly after the breaking of the bread, and the drinking the blood of Christ, a still small voice inside of him spoke out.

"God is not here."

Say what?

He looked around.

Did anyone else hear that?

Nope, guess not, because they solemnly continued worshipping.

Weeks later, the memory of it, still caused him to shudder.

After the service, Steele dashed downstairs for a coffee and cookie on the house, and to unwind.

In spite of the fact it was Palm Sunday, and heartfelt sermons were uttered up upstairs just minutes prior, the volunteers serving up the refreshments remained aloof and distant from the parishioners streaming in to chat each other up.

When Steele approached one table with flyers on it, a prissy middle-aged lady stared down her nose at him, and blurted out rudely:

"This is for women."

Gosh - did it never occur to the ice Queen - that a handful of men in attendance might be interested in rustling up information for the women (mothers, sisters, girlfriends) in their lives?

"I'm not wearing my glasses, so I couldn’t peruse the information on the hand-out," he responded, with a broad smile, nonetheless.

Suddenly, he recalled that Grace had a new web site, so he pulled out his laptop to see if the webmaster had set-up any Internet connection yet.

When the splash screen burst across the computer screen, the usual list of Internet servers, were blocked out.

The walls at Grace must be pretty thick, Robert chuckled to himself, as he perused the screen for more options.

When he clicked on the icon for the lone service that popped up in a dialogue box, he noticed the ID right off-off-the-bat.

It read "Black Hawk".

A shiver ran up his spine, but it wasn't a pleasant one, in fact.

He pondered the situation for a moment.

What would happen if Steele inputted  "Whore of Babylon" and tried to use the three digit password  666?

(to be continued)

http://www.thetattler.biz

Fountain in Huntington Park on Nob Hill!

 

0 comments

Arthur Erickson...passes into spirit. The Canadian architect was dishonest and lacked integrity!

When I flipped through the morning newspaper and stumbled across Arthur Erickson's obituary, one or two disturbing memories were dredged up.

C'est la vie!

Years ago, our professional paths crossed in Vancouver (B.C.) when I was a struggling artist (painter/sculptor) and his star was on the rise in the exciting field of architecture on the picturesque West Coast of Canada.

One day, amid quite a bit of fanfare, it was announced that Erickson had been commissioned by the burgeoning city to design Robson Square (pictured below) in downtown Vancouver.

On the heels of the announcement, Erickson's architectural team put out a call for a dynamic piece of sculpture - to fulfill the role of centerpiece - for the tantalizing project which was going to span over several blocks in what amounted to a lush garden setting.

After reviewing the submission guidelines, it hit me like a bolt of lightning.

If I designed a piece of sculpture that was not only aesthetically-pleasing - but functional as well - surely I would nab the assignment hands-down.

After all, the neon tube light sculpture I conjured up in my creative eye would not only add an eye-catching decorative flourish, but provide much-needed lighting for the breath-taking open space which was to include a world-class skating rink on the landing below.

I hired a competent draftsman to professionally prepare the designs in scale, at which point, I excitedly submitted the professional package to the officials in charge of the competition.

A few weeks after the deadline for entries passed, I was informed by way of a curt letter that my concept for the "Light Sculpture" was rejected on the grounds that the materials involved - neon, transformers, and delicate tubing - were too expensive to render the art piece cost effective for the Robson Street project.

If I recall, the price tag was approximately $30,000.00.

A mere drop in the bucket, when you consider that the city fathers slated millions upon millions of taxpayer dollars to erect what was intended to be a "landmark" architectural gem in downtown Vancouver.

What a disappointment.

But, a few months down the road, the depression over the loss of the commission turned into downright anger.

One day, while I was perusing the morning paper, I happened across a notice that greedy self-absorbed Arthur Erickson had been hired to design one of the subway stations on the newly-approved extension to the existing line.

I was flabbergasted when I read a description of the design he proposed for the space.

Yup!

Erickson's "neon light" proposal for the space "mirrored" my own creation.

That slug literally stole my concept, idea, and design right out from under me.

I dashed to my typewriter (no table-top PC's in those days, folks) and fired off a letter.

In sum, I demanded that Mr. Erickson explain why an individual of his stature and prestige in the architectural arena - blessed with a deep well of creative and financial resources - would have the audacity to steal the work product of a struggling young artist without so much as a nod or a "thank you very much".

You got it.

Erickson didn't even give me the courtesy of a reply.

Ironically, when Robson Square was erected and a gallery had been installed in the mall area downstairs on the street level later, I was asked to exhibit a handful of my sketches and paintings in a group show of local artists.

At that juncture, the original sketches for the neon light sculpture I designed, had been beautifully framed - so, cheeky devil that I am - I displayed the incriminating sketches for all the world to see.

Of course, my intention was diabolical.

I proceeded to pen background info on the neon light sculpture; then, it was summarily posted abreast the three framed drawings, so the ugly issues would be in the forefront.

Natch, I included the details about the design being originally rejected by the team of Robson Square architects, then later "lifted" by Erickson without my permission for use at the subway station just a hop-and-a-skip outside of the city.

The allegations were hung in plain view; consequently, thousands of visitors to the gallery read 'em over a four week period.

In spite of the embarrassing finger-pointing, I never heard a peep out of Erickson.

Curiously, there were no complaints from friends or business associates, or requests that the "offending" tell-all be removed from the Robson Square gallery.

Nuff said!

The unscrupulous builder also rubbed quite a few architects the wrong way, too, due to his lack of integrity and ethics.

For example, Erickson was inclined to politic and back-stab in social circles, with the specific aim of securing commissions for his firm - and ultimately - exalting his name and reputation in the community at large.

For example, after the incident with me, he put his "foot in it" when he accepted a commission from Pierre Elliot Trudeau to design the Canadian Embassy in Washington (D.C.), in spite of the fact the judges chose another Architect's stunning design for the prestigious project.

In spite of an outcry (and scandal) that followed, Erickson didn't even have the integrity - or the decency - to bow out gracefully so that the winning entrant could take the reins and erect the showcase Canadians were entitled to.

Bad Karma must have caught up with Mr. Erickson, because the building he imagined the crown jewel in his lofty empire - was hailed in most quarters as lacklustre and a critical failure.

Questions were also raised over the years about his lack of foresight when he it came to the obvious.

For instance, Erickson pigheadedly pushed forward his designs for the "Museum of Anthropology" (a structure primarily crafted in glass that any fool with an ounce of intelligence could have anticipated might leak in torrential rainfalls) in spite of the fact he knew full well the flawed design was being erected in a region of the Pacific Northwest known for its unrelenting stormy blasts.

Yup.

It leaked profusely, on occasion.

Shortly after those embarrassing scenarios loudly sounded sour notes around the architectural landscape, his professional career went into a decline.

Sadly, the aging Lothario ended up a pale reflection of himself.

Haunted by his own demons, I expect.

I trust when Erickson met his maker earlier this week - that he was forthright about his sins - otherwise he'll probably return in the next life mere brick and mortar.

http://www.julianayrs.com

0 comments

Fantastic Mr. Fox...Wes Anderson & actor Jason Schwartzman @ Q & A....Fox an Oscar Contender in which LA TIMES scores...

Wes Anderson (the Director of "Mr Fantastic Fox") got caught with his hand in the cookie jar, handsome Jason Schwartzman rustled up cat calls when he strode out onto the podium, and "Fox" proved it's in the running and a surefire contender for an Oscar bid.

The "Envelope" event, sponsored by the Los Angeles Times @ the Landmark Theatres in West LA, was a hit with the rapt audience in attendance.

Last week I begged off a screening @ Mann's Chinese in order to catch the Q & A with Wes Anderson at last night's high-profile screening, and the creative genius did not disappoint.

Congenial staffers and a comfortable cozy theatre environment (outfitted with cushy leather-upholstered chairs and a rich interior that appealed to the senses) set the mood for a very enjoyable entertaining night.

In fact, one one occasion when actor Jason Schwartzman reminisced about a fond memory, I experienced a flash of deja vu.

As I was jotting down a few of the comic actor's amusing quips, I reeled a little for a moment because throughout that segment, I felt it all happened before!

For me, the auspicious moment was a good omen, and signalled I was connected to the proceedings in some inexplicable way unknown to my conscious mind at this point in time.

Patrick Goldstein - a regular journalist who pens a show-biz column at the La Times (and a subsequent blog as an appendage to it) - fielded questions for the industrious guests to digest and answer.

Unfortunately, I am not moved by Mr. Goldstein's written words.

On occasion, he conjures up a tired column that's old hat, but is under the misguided impression that he's just invented sliced bread or something nutritious like that.

Zzzzzzzzz!

The interview(s) started off on a shakey note, for starters.

For example, when the washed-out-looking newsie quipped that Anderson appeared to be wearing the same suit he sported on the occasion of their last interview, the comment went over like a lead balloon.

He was quick on the uptake, though.

"Well, autumnal colors, at least," he added half-jokingly, or something to that effect, in a bold-faced effort to smooth over the waters a tad.

In another segment with Schwartzman, the journalist joked that because the young star was Jewish, he was welcome to answer the question with a question.

Duh!

Jason paused a second or two before responding (speechless?).

Say what?

Once Goldstein began to focus on the sparkling facets of his fascinating guests, the interview jump-started before it was inclined to fly into a ditch by the side of the well-travelled road he was treading on.

Wes Anderson was a vastly entertaining (delightfully witty) guest.

In fact, whenever the gifted director opened his mouth - usually with short sweet answers to questions that  allowed him to grandstand a bit - I generally laughed out loud.

I thought I would bust a gut on occasion - as Liz's character in the award-winning play - "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf" - might brey.

With the aim of dredging up a guffaw or two from the audience, Anderson was keen on tossing the spotlight on his less-than-upright character traits, for example.

In the film "Fantastic Mr. Fox" for instance, there is a scene with blueberries (won't spoil it for you with too many revealing details) which Wes lifted from another Roald Dahl book (without permission) .

Out-of-the-blue one fine day,  the estate's legal department rang up Anderson to scold him, after catching wind of his scandalous conduct.

"You can't steal copywritten material from another book for "Fox"," he cautioned in so many words.

Saddened by the unexpected dressing-down, Anderson got in touch with Mrs. Dahl and wailed:

"But, we already made the blueberries."

"Oh, okay," she sighed. "Use it, then."

Wes never directed an animated film before, so in response to a question about how he approached the subject, he reacted dead-pan

"Well, there was a farm featured in the movie."

"So," I said, "I guess we have to get a farm".

I laughed out loud - after all - the way he blurted it out in that distinctive droll tone of voice of his was downright hilarious!

Originally, Henry Selick (award-winning animator) was lined up to partner with Wes on the project.

But, Mr. Fantastic Fox ended up being ten years in the making (from inception to shooting schedule).

So, by the time Anderson dotted the i's and crossed the t's on the deal, Sellick was whole-heartedly (and contentedly) involved with "Coraline".

By the way, I interviewed Mr. Selick on the red carpet in Dallas at a festival there.

Charming talented man!

Link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTy22Vime2Q

What about Schwartzman?

 The lad was stylishly turned-out in a suit and a trendy "do".

Whoa nellie!

Was he actually wearing pink socks?

Me thinks so!

"He's so short," a gal next to me chimed in after brushing into him on a potty break just prior to the screening.

Short in height, but not in stature, though.

Even still,  excited femme fatales (a dude or two, too)  were inclined to hurl a few cat-calls his way.

In spite of the fact his family hails from the biz, Jason did not have a fixation about becoming an actor when he was a kid.

"It was not something I felt I could do."

In contrast, he stumbled on his passion for music when he was a mere boy.

"I could listen to music alone in my room and get CRAZY," he confessed.

But, as fate would have it, his mother arrived home one day with three DVD's in tow, which ended up shaking his eyes wide open.

So, he got the bug.

I suppose in the final analysis, an apple doesn't fall far from the tree, eh?

Just as the interview started to move along at a fast clip - sprinkled with wicked laughs from the performers and roars of approval from the audience - Mr. Anderson managed to stumble on one answer in spite of the fact he was normally on-the-ball in that regard.

Jason leaned over at this juncture and assured the well-liked director that he "didn't have to answer" that (question).

"Keep that stuff for yourself," he urged..

Guess the instinctive actor fathomed a long time ago that it wasn't  necessary (or required) to gush and fawn over a host during the course of an interview (even after the floodlights shut down).

Smart cookie,

Believe it or not, Jason confided on the heels of this notion, that he didn't know how to approach the part of his character (Ash) in the early throes of developing it..

"I didn't know if I should speak in a child's voice - high-ptiched - or whatever," he noted as he grappled with his respons.

So, one day in London, Anderson arranged for a quick run-through about twenty minutes in length to help the actor get a grip on it.

"It was snowing pages," he chuckled in a madcap moment of precise recall.

"It was like the old days of movie-making in the silent-film era," he noted with a bit of wonder in his voice.

"Wes actually talked me through scenes. Like, 'oh, this just happened, react to it', and that sort-of-thing."

Wes always thought of animals and wildlife in nature when he worked on  the Fox project in order to get focused on the task at hand, but Schawartzman revealed without any qualms that he tended to drift to thoughts (and images) of people instead.

"These animals (in the script) could be like humans with thoughts and feelings, ya know?"

Bill Murray (who played Christopherson, a visiting cousin) toyed with the idea of a Wisconsin accent - which Anderson confided to the audience - was a bit "out there".

"It was totally away from where I was going with it. Besides, I was not familiar with the nuances of a Wisconsin accent, so I couldn't properly evaluate whether it was bang on or not."

As to a discussion, the issue pretty much fell out of favor without much argument, according to the director.

Anderson raved about Murray's performance at the end of the film, in particular, though.

In that end scene, shot on location on a farmhouse set, amidst picturesque Connecticut landscapes, Bill took a stab at playing the part of the "Wolf".

"He was so great in that part. Perfect."

In fact, Wes was so enchanted by the Wolf portrayal, that a copy of the scene he caught on his mobile telephone was turned over to the art department to facilitate an exact rendering (and depiction) of that remarkable scene.

"So, Bill is uncredited in the role of the wolf in Fox."

Personally, I was totally knocked out by Clooney's voice-over work, which suited the character of Mr. Fox to a "T".

Normally, each actor does his own voice-over assignment in a sound studio - alone - so the track is clean.

Here, Wes tried to have as many actors available on set to perform the scenes live.

"I realized that George's voice was a large part of acting after witnessing him at work".

If there was digging going on in a scene, the actors dug. If there was scratching at a door, they scratched."

"It felt like we were performing in a radio play," Jason piped up.

The beauty of it was, there was no frame to hinder or limit the recording process.

So, the on-his-toes soundman managed to deftly zip inand-out and catch all the audios on track without interruption as much as was humanly (beastly?) possible.

Goldstein made an astute observation (for once in his life) when he pointed out that Merly streep was so into her character, that audiences often forgot she was the voice behind Mrs. Fox.

Uncanny!


That's exactly what happenrd with me.

In fact, so much so, that I wondered if I was mistaken when I published a voice-over credit on a blog post last week.

Patrick asked about pixal films in view of the stunning images created in the Fox feature.

Schwartzman loves Monster Ink, Up, and Wall-E.

"The pixal films are funny and smart. I understand that they developed seven of the projects over a one-hour lunch."

"But, they didn't think of Toy 2," he joked.

At this juncuture, the conversation focused on Roald Dahl, and there was mention of the fact he wrote his autobiography for the kids. (Boy/Going Solo)

Dahl was also known to love books - and the kids were keenly aware of that - without doubt.

The 1st draft of the film script ended up being quite different than the book.

"We gave the characters names and fleshed out their personalities."

Anderson revealed that he wasn't sure if he dreamed up the idea, if it came from his own imagination, or whether he stole the idea from somewhere.

"My younger and older brothers were models for the film characters, obviously," he admitted.

Without choking up, the dynamic auteur recalled that his brother was bigger and stronger, just like the character in Fox.

"He made me feel inferior."

There was a moan from the audience.

Aw!

"Well, not in a bad way," he was quick to add.

I sat up in my chair when the soundtrack kicked in with a raw Rolling Stones tune at one juncture.

The choice of music was so "right" in that instant scenario.

That memorable ditty was followed by an upbeat California-surfing hit by the Beach Boys.

Like everyone else in the room, Goldstein was curious about how Anderson secured the rights for the Stones hit.

"They'd rather I didn't discuss that," he almost whispered to the attentive interviewer.

Yes, he admitted, there has been an ongoing partnership with the Rolling Stones who were friends of his.

I wouldn't mind striking up bonds with dudes like that on MySpace, eh?

Initially, because the setting was a farm, West chose a hillbilly sound with a predominant Banjo twang to set the tone and mood.

Burl Ives songbooks and Davey Crocket soundtracks impacted the musical vision, too.

"The composer tied together the key elements."

Illustrations from the Dahl children's book were incorporated by reference on a myriad of levels and inspired the use of miniature sets coined from the Dahl farm and surrounding landscape.

A review of Mr. Fantastic Fox - just fantastic, by the way - follows in a day or two.

Catch it if you can!

http://www.julianayrs.com/

0 comments