We are responding to Philip Kennicott's critique of "Art of the Steal," director Don Argott's important documentary about the Barnes Foundation. (We both appear in the film.) We know how complicated the story is, but believe the Post's article conveys misimpressions.

As the son of the man whose friendship with Albert Barnes gave control of the Barnes Foundation to Lincoln University (Julian Bond) and as the author of Art Held Hostage: The Battle Over the Barnes Collection (John Anderson), we have closely followed the saga of the Barnes for years.

Mr. Kennicott is skeptical of the central premise of "Art of the Steal": that "over the past decade, Pew and other larger Philadelphia foundations worked behind the scenes, with state and local government collusion, to hijack the art collection assembled by pharmaceutical mogul Albert Barnes and move it from its longtime home in the Philadelphia suburbs to a prominent site on the city's main cultural and tourist artery."

For all the reasons given in the film, and based upon our independent research and knowledge, we believe that is precisely what happened.

In defense of the move, Pew CEO Rebecca Rimel, who  declined to be interviewed for the film (and who claims not to have seen it), was quoted as saying:  "You have to move forward based on your reputation, and you need to be transparent."

Nothing about this so-called rescue has been transparent. The genius of Argott's film is to show us, in detail, how this corporate-style takeover of the Barnes was accomplished. Indeed, two proponents of the move, PA Governor Ed Rendell and former PA Attorney General Mike Fisher, all but admit on camera to back-room deals, quid pro quos, and pressure applied.

The trial court judge found that "the course of action chosen by the Office of the Attorney General prevented the court from seeing a balanced, objective presentation of the situation, and constituted an abdication of that office's responsibility."

If "Art of the Steal" is the "slash and burn documentary" Mr. Kennicott suggests, why did Mr. Argott afford Gov. Rendell and former Attorney General Fisher (and others) an opportunity to speak? Why did he invite Ms. Rimel to give her side of the story?

More importantly, if Ms. Rimel's side of the story is so compelling, why did she not articulate it?

It's not true that the Barnes had no recourse other than to accept a move to downtown Philadelphia. The Barnes could have sold non-displayed art. In addition, Montgomery County, where the Barnes is located, stood ready to float a $50 million bond to shore up the foundation's endowment. The Barnes board summarily rejected this generous offer. There could only be one reason why: The intention of the "rescuers" was always and foremost to trump Dr. Barnes' will, move the collection into Philadelphia's Parkway, and turn it into a money-engendering tourist mecca.

Julian Bond

Washington, D.C. 

John Anderson

Ossining, NY