So, maybe if you are a big museum with a really "important" art collection, you should be able to look around and snub your nose at the economic realities facing most other folks. Such appears to be the case for the Barnes.
You may recall that the Barnes has an important collection of Impressionist and early Modernist paintings which has been housed in a non-urban and non-central setting developed by the original owner of the collection, Albert Barnes.
Anyway, having a big art collection in the middle of nowhere just isn't that sustainable, but Albert Barnes insisted on the collection remaining where it is when he set up the original trust. So the trustees went to court to ask to move the collection to where it would be accessible. This of course is a pretty unusual step because the intent of donors is considered pretty "sacred". Well, the trustees won making the case that the donor really would want folks to experience the collection and that that just wasn't going to continue if the musuem failed economically staying where it was first housed.
There are still those trying to stop this veering away from the original intent but the fundraising is going forward to make the move. And with that, in these times, the Barnes has announced that they have increased membership from 400 to 10,000 and have exceeded their fundraising goal of $200 million, ensuring the development of an endowment to help offset future costs. This of course is very good planning.
Meanwhile, the economy sucks and many arts groups are feeling this but there still remains some who can survive. Why?