Well, OK, that first one is actually the park by the Merion train station as you walk to the Barnes, and that seems like argument enough for keeping the Barnes where it is rather than sticking it in the car-congested Benjamin Franklin Parkway.
And the above is on North Latch's Lane, on the walk to the Barnes. OK, all the rest of these are from the Barnes. 
One of the Jacques Lipchitz reliefs that Barnes commissioned for the gallery exterior. The buildings below are part of Barnes's living quarters, now used as administration buildings and not open to the public. 
Some of the African-influenced tiles at the front entrance. The little pagoda below is also in the front.
The birdbath in the rose garden. There's a shot farther down that shows the layout of the rose garden. 
I like the shot above because it reminds me of a Jackson Pollock action painting.
The above is the rose garden, which has the most formal layout to be found in the Arboretum. 
Fallen flowers.
The above is the little building in the back, near a greenhouse. I think that's where tour buses go, and maybe some drivers, though I think some cars also enter by the front gate, where pedestrians like me also enter. 
4 comments:
Beautiful grounds, and of course, I especially liked the shots of the roses. How nice that the east coast can have guilt free green lawns.
The roses are action shots, since the wind rose while I was taking those shots.
I was looking at my scabby dry front yard this morning and feeling quite eco-virtuous.
How lovely to see these pictures and remember my trip there, during my glorious summer of unemployment. Before I went, I read a really early (1928? could that be right?) profile in The New Yorker about Barnes and then Peter Schejdahl's (sp?) article about seeing the Barnes for the first time as an adult in the 2000s.
I'll go re-read your earlier blog . . .
Yeah, I remember when you went! Happy summers when the unemployment is intentional. . .
I was glad this time that I had a chance to see the gardens -- it was pouring rain the other time I went there.
That New Yorker profile of Barnes really might have been 1928. And I also liked Peter S's article (I also can't remember how to spell his name) about the Barnes. And I agree with him, that it would be a shame to move it.
I think the anti-move website I linked to in my earlier post references his article.
You should try to go back before they move it -- it's close enough to be do-able, but maybe just far enough to be a bit inconvenient. But I think it would be worth it.
Post a Comment