SnoopyStyle In 1922, Albert Barnes created the Barnes Foundation outside of Philadelphia to house his collection of post-impressionist and early modern art. In 2007, the $Billions collection was 'stolen' from its Lower Merion location to downtown Philadelphia with the need for high-end art for public consumption, crocked politicians, money-hungry non-profits, and big moneyed establishment. Barnes had made his fortune creating a cure. He hated the conservative establishment in Philadelphia and collected great modern artists in Paris when they were dismissed by the art world. His collection was initially attacked by art critics. Then he was criticized for not showing the collection enough. He got into a life-long fight with Philadelphia Inquirer's owners tax-evading Moses Annenberg and Nixonian son Walter. After Barnes' death in 1951, it begins a long running battle to gain control of the foundation. This is very informative and more insightful than most fictional movies. It also proves that the good guys don't always win and money talks. It's a great if one-sided investigative documentary.

mr_deadly This well-made documentary is informative and fascinating, but I don't think it fairly presents the arguments for those who disagree with its thesis, which is that Barnes' will should be meticulously respected as it pertains to his amazing art collection.Those who feel otherwise are portrays as gangsters, thieves, Philistines: power-hungry jerks with selfish motives. While there is an undoubtedly an element of truth to those accusations, it is not the entire story. I feel I must play a little devil's advocate for a more charitable spin on 'the other side.' It appears to me that the collection's arrangement and display in the original Barnes building is hopelessly outdated: crammed together in the style of a century ago, and arranged according to the whim of one man who is long dead. The modern museum gives art much more space to breathe, and scholars and curators can and do illuminate art by arranging it, and juxtaposing it, in new and different ways.Why should these works be arranged, forever, in only one pattern, and in only one building? Blockbuster exhibitions are not merely money-makers for museums, but are opportunities to see art in a different context, and for scholars and curators to advance the study of art by combining pieces in new and different ways.Why, logically, should cultural treasures be considered the property of one man legacy for all of eternity? I can see the logic of requesting an owner's wishes for a long period of time--say, for 50 years. But for centuries? Owners of art deserve respect, but the notion that ownership can extend out into an infinite future is crazy. Just as copyrighted works eventually enter the public domain, so should artworks become available for the benefit and enjoyment of the larger public.Barnes' name should be, and will be, associated with this art for a very long time. But his obsessions and whims and taste should not dictate the fate of his collection for all time. Allowing the work to travel, and to be arranged differently, and to even move into a new building, is reasonable (over centuries, a dozen different curators and scholars might bring their era's thinking and aesthetic to the collection).I concede that this might be painful for Lower Merion, and to those who agree with Barnes' will. But Barnes has been dead for decades. Ownership and control of objects of major cultural importance should, eventually, pass from the control of an owner who has long been dead.And Matisse's line, about how the Barnes was the only sane place in America to view art, should be taken with a grain of salt: if he saw the best art museums in America today, he may very well have changed his mind. A world-class museum today is far, far superior to any art museum of a century ago. Each generation produces new scholarship, and artworks of genuine cultural importance should be available to the finest scholars and curators of each generation. To do otherwise is to overvalue the taste and importance of a single individual who died decades ago, and to undervalue the art's importance to the wider world.

JoeB131 This is a very well made film.All that said, I guess I am having a hard time seeing the outrage expressed by filmmakers. It isn't like the art is being sold off to rich people. It is being put in one venue and into another which is more accessible to the public.Yes, one can truly appreciate the fact that Barnes had a legitimate gripe with the cultural elite of Philadelphia (which honestly sounds like an oxymoron in itself). But in the end, he won. He was the guy with the vision and the artwork he collected, much of it dismissed in its time, are now seen as masterworks.To continue his vendetta against his adversaries (all of whom are about as dead as he is) seems a bit silly. The artworks are going to be preserved as an intact collection in a much better venue. I'm just having a hard time sharing the outrage here...

evolvedbutter The Art of the Steal is a "documentary" about the war between two factions of people, centralized in Philadelphia: The politicians who want the priceless art collected by the Barnes Foundation to be moved to all of the major museums of downtown Philadelphia no matter the cost, and all of the pretentious snobbish Barnes-loyalists. I put quotes around the word "documentary" because it's a documentary on the same lines as Triumph of the Will: one-sided propaganda for the sole reason of making the Barnes loyalists even more self righteous. In terms of subject value, it almost had a chance to be interesting, until you take a step back and realize how absurd the whole debate is. Don Argott was hired by the proprietors of the Barnes Foundation to make a one-sided film, villainizing anyone who favors moving the Barnes Collection. The various people interviewed in the film is almost like the cast of a Christopher Guest movie. There are some people interviewed where you actually have to say to yourself, "Is this person for real? This has to be an act." Such delightful art snob caricatures include a guy with a ratty mustache who gasps and contorts his face in hyperbolic shock at every trivial little detail. We also have the older gentleman who's views are: if it's at the Barnes Foundation, it's better than any other art anywhere else on Earth. Such great quotes of his include, "This is a nice Matisse...but it's not as nice as the Matisse at the Barnes." It's funny until you realize he's serious and that yes, his head is indeed that far up his own ass. Then we have shrill crazy former Barnes student, a wonderful little over reactionary individual who loves to protest and scream catchphrases like, "PHILISTINES!" and "YOU'RE LAUGHING NOW, WAIT UNTIL IT'S YOUR WILL!"In terms of cinematic value, there is none. It is presented in the most typical, tired, and boring documentary style of people talking at the camera inter cut with stock footage of time lapses of large skyscrapers and clouds.An unbiased documentary showing both the pros and cons of both sides may have actually been a decent film. Heck, there may even be the possibility of a decent film with the existing footage if it were to be edited differently. I would love to see a re-edit of the film where instead of ignorantly biased, it would be self aware at how ridiculous not only the whole debate is, but how absurd all of the Barnes Loyalists are. If it were edited in a similar style to "American Movie" or "Some Kind of Monster" and showed the subjects for how obnoxious they all were, it would exponentially improve an otherwise dreadful film. I hope Dan Argott received a nice, fat paycheck from the Barnes Foundation, because his film has pretty much no merit anywhere else than in the minds of the people he made the film for.I didn't know much of the Barnes Foundation before I saw this movie, and I certainly knew nothing of this petty debate that was occurring. After watching the entire film, I found myself so disgusted with the extreme bias of the film and everyone interviewed in it, I was actually rooting for the other side to win. The debate is about ownership of stuff that has every right to be public; who gets to have the pride of owning some priceless painting. Barnes took all of his painting from their native countries anyways. Maybe neither the Barnes nor the city of Philadelphia are the rightful owners, maybe it's France. I've talked to people I know who've been to the Barnes, and the general consensus is that there is great art, but it's poorly presented with upwards of 30 paintings are crammed onto a single wall, inhibiting one's ability to actually appreciate each on its own individual level.In the end, isn't it more about the art being accessible to everyone? Who cares if it's in a museum or some house out side of the city. Matisse doesn't care, Rembrandt doesn't care, Cezanne doesn't care. No one in this film should be celebrated. The politicians are selfish and go about the movement of the art is a sneaky corrupt fashion, and the Barnes loyalist are all stuck up, annoying, reprehensible people who take the whole situation far too seriously. They have gotten too wrapped up in a silly debate, that they have forgotten what truly was important that started the debate in the first place.I gave it 2 stars, because while the film was awful, the poster is actually really well done.