In response to my article on the Musee Matisse and the Barnes Foundation museum, posted yesterday at the BroadStreetReview.com, BSR received today the following letter from Nick Tinari, a Philadelphia lawyer. The Junto's version of same story is below. -- The Editor.
On Oct 5, 2011,
So rife with inaccuracies and unattributed statements as to be a complete fiction.
First sentence: a first year art student would know that Matisse was not an Impressionist.
Next, the Merion gallery is not a "villa", it was purpose built as a gallery for a school (not a museum) from day one. The author must want to impress readers with his knowledge of touristy sounding words like "villa" and his worldliness at having visited some, but he is completely ignorant of the history of the Barnes Foundation and of architecture in general.
Next, the author cites no source for the statement that Barnes disliked the mural and for the conclusion that the two men parted association. The evidence is to the contrary, since there are Matisse works in the Barnes Foundation that postdate the mural.
I could go on, but I think this is evidence enough that the author is working in the realm of fantasy. Maybe it makes a nice story, but it's not a true story. A true story would be how know-nothings like the author are now running the Foundation and how, thanks to them and the ancient animosity against the foundation of gangster scion Walter Annenberg, the mural will end up in a place the painter and his patron never intended it to be.
The BSR's Editor's Response:
Thanks for your letter. We'll post it soon.
That reference in the blurb to Matisse as an Impressionist was my error; I've corrected it.