This posting addresses the facts behind the decision of the
Philadelphia Museum of Art and the Barnes Foundation trustees to
endanger the rare and fragile Seurat painting, The Models for inclusion
in the exhibit at the Museum of Art.
        In 1992, politically motivated trustees, eager to turn the Barnes
Foundation's school into a full-time museum, petitioned the court to
allow a tour of paintings that violated the Foundation's Indenture of
Trust.  Bowing to political pressure, the court
ultimately accepted the Trustees' highly publicized bid. However,
testimony in the hearings, ignored by the local media, revealed the
fragile state of several works including The Models, that the Barnes
Trustees and their Museum sponsors insisted on touring.
        Supporters of the Foundation's art education program presented
testimony by the Foundations' former painting conservator Wendy Samet.
 Samet was familiar with the fragility of certain works and opposed
their traveling under any circumstances.  However, she was dismissed by
Foundation President Richard Glanton shortly before the tour-plan was
made public.  Glanton claimed she was dismissed because "the Foundation
[could] obtain expert service at no cost from the National Gallery." The
National Gallery's director later denied its involvement in any
conservation treatment such as Samet performed.  The American Institute
of Conservation's president, Paul Himmelstein, called Samet "highly
qualified" in an Inquirer article published shortly after her firing.
        Samet was asked under oath,, June 9, 1992 "Why do you have the opinion
that [Seurat's Models] should not be allowed to tour no matter what
conservation is performed?"  She replied: "Because when I was up on
scaffolding looking at it closely, I noticed that it had a long history
of flaking.  The painting has been lined. It has been treated in the
past. Because of the materials and the way they were applied by Mr.
Seurat, they are not well bound to the canvas. And there's a history of
chronic flaking of the paint, chronic loss of paint, which although you
can address it locally setting down each flake as it's loose, its whole
construction makes it insecure and makes that type of flaking likely.  I
would recommend that it go to one spot  [during the closing of the
Foundation's galleries], preferably with as little travel and crating
and jostling as possible."
        The 1991 National Gallery of Art publication Art in Transit, includes a
handbook "describing procedures that will enable packers, registrars,
curators, and conservators to effectively use the results of the
research of specialists in the field."          The handbook advises caution
when considering loan of glue lined paintings such as The Models "Since
glue and paste lining adhesives are very susceptible to dimensional
changes with relative humidity variations."  It further recommends "The
painting should not have a history of chronic instability in the support
or paint layer such as recurring paint flaking. Such chronic problems
indicate an unstable structure that is more responsive to environmental
changes making the painting more vulnerable  and increases the loan
risks."
        A February 1993  report by the National Gallery's Ross Merrill confirms
Samet's observations. "Flaking has occurred... insecure paint was found
along the edges." However Merrill recommended that the work "in its
present state is secure for travel."  Ignoring Samet's testimony, and
relying on Merrill's the Court approved The Models' travel to Washington
, Paris, Tokyo and Philadelphia.
        In January of 1994, Merrill inspected the Barnes works in Tokyo.  He
then recommended against The Models being allowed to travel to two new
venues added by the Barnes trustees after his original assessment.
 Merrill's specious argument insisted that the painting suffered no
damage, but that the additional venues would create "undue risk"  Common
sense would dictate that either the work had been weakened since it left
the Barnes Foundation, or it was too weak to start, as foretold by Wendy
Samet two years earlier.
        With this questionable conservation history in mind, the judge who
allowed the tour ordered the Seurat "returned to The Barnes Foundation
at the close of the exhibition in Tokyo." However, the Barnes trustees
and the Museum of Art quietly added the Seurat to the Philadelphia
exhibition list and included it on the cover of the catalog.  With some
last minute legal wrangling, the kind which the powerful have always
been able to pull off, the
Seurat was allowed in the current show. Clearly, the safety of the
painting should have come before catalog sales and ticket promotions,
but this is not a polite topic for the media, most of whom are now
feeding off the Museum's "planned marketing budget of $247,000."
        For further information write:Barnes Watch, Post Office Box 49
Broomall, PA 19008.