The Getty Center, revisited

[Steven_Draker]

A great collection, but even without the art, the center itself is an architectural wonder and has an amazing view of L.A.

I particularly loved the gardens. A must see if you find yourself in L.A.

 

If you're interested, you can check the few shots I took from the Getty here

http://www.kodakgallery.com/Slideshow.jsp?mode=fromshare&Uc=1441foji.9udqzk26&Uy=hzzdn8&Ux=0

 

Steven D.

http://www.hotsexystud.com

[Epigonos]

An interesting side to your comments about the Getty Museum and Gardens is that when architect Richard Meier first saw the designs for the gardens he went ballistic and demanded that they be completely changed. Robert Irwin who had designed the gardens refused and Meier believing he had total control over both the buildings and gardens when to the Getty management. At that point he was informed that his contract did NOT give him control over the garden designs and that Irwin's plans would remain. Meier supposedly stormed out and has never had much positive to say about the gardens. However, to this day the gardens are the part of the complex that receive the most positive comments from visitors.

[Rod Hagen]

You should visit the recently reoppened Getty Villa (and Griffith observatory as well.)

[Traveler North]

Hi Steven - Glad you liked te new Getty. It really is awesome, the collection and the view. Hope you can visit the original in Malibu which is classical architecture and quite impressive also.

[+ ArVaGuy]

Great pics Steven. I will be in LA starting March 3 and have Getty on my list of places to see. Your pics give me an even greater incentive.

 

Thanks.

[Epigonos]

I wish somebody would explain to me just exactly what they think is so great about the Getty collection. As far as I can tell it is very stong in Illuminated Manuscripts and photography. After that it is mostly hit and miss - one outstanding thing from this period and one outstanding thing from that period but not much depth except in the above two areas. Though the collection is smaller at the Norton Simon's in Pasadena it is superior in many ways.

 

Additionally though I find Meier's architecture innovative and interesting I don't really think it is very visitor friendly. Visitors spend much of their time going and and down and moving from building to building. IMO Meier is a outsdanding example of a group of late 20th and early 21st Century architects who are most interested in architecture for architecures sake and could care less about the functions of the buildings they design. It is also interesting that on bright summer days one needs to wear dark glassed outside as the glare from the buildings exterior is horrendous.

[+ ArVaGuy]

I have heard it described as the most mediocre collection money can buy according to a friend of mine. Also with all the scandals they have had of late it's a place I have wanted to see for my self to form my own judgments.

[Guest zipperzone]

Steven - great pics, thanks for sharing.

 

It is easy to see why the gardens get more public approval than the buildings. They are more human in scale - something people can relate to.

 

Although the building may be spectacular, they seems to overpower one.

[Karl-G]

Very nice pictures, Steven. Thank you.

 

The gardens are indeed very nice, although if you get to see them in the summer when they are full of rich color, it is quite different from these pictures. There is a cactus garden, which you observe from above at several points. There is the great maze with lush plantings of many flowers and brilliant color, and there is the new meandering stream coming down the hill.

 

But of course it is primarily an art museum. And here I would agree with the other posters. The collection is purely third rate. Getty always tried to get things on the cheap, and it shows. (Remember, he installed a pay phone in his mansion that guests had to use.) He hired sleazy incompetent quacks to build his collection rather than hiring good solid professionals because it would have cost more, and he got the fakes and forgeries of their friends from Eastern Europe. (When the collection was being put together and the museum being built, there were many articles in professional art journals about the people and practices involved.) The walls are covered with mediocre art. When you think of all the money the Getty has, and spends, each year, it is amazing how little of value they have acquired. Getty would buy only "bargains."

 

They continue to operate this way today. The director recently resigned after a scandal involving his private spending ways - most money goes into the pockets of administrators, apparently. Their former director of antiquities, Marian True, is on trial in Italy for (allegedly) stealing national treasures from Italy and dealing in the black market. If you can legitimately spend $3.5 billion on art each year, why would you stoop to dealing in the black market and stealing from other countries?

 

Remember, almost everything in their antiquities collection is a fake/forgery or stolen. Almost all of their "ancient" statues were made in dark warehouses in Roumania in the 1960s. They are no more authentic than a concrete statue you get at K-Mart.

 

As you go through the paintings, you keep looking for something really good. There are very few. With able advisors and competency, this collection could have been one of the best in the world. As it is, it is not worth mentioning, except for the buildings. There are many stories about Richard Meiers, the architect. He only works in white, it is true, and it is hard on the eyes when the sun is out. Also, in the original plans, and they were built completely before it was noticed, he neglected to install any toilets anyplace. On opening day, they had thousands of people with urgency and someone finally realized the problem. They had to quickly bring in hundreds of port-a-potties. The buildings were later remodeled with bathrooms installed.

 

I would agree, it is worth visiting the Getty as part of sightseeing in Los Angeles, but not to see a great art collection, unfortunately, nor even a good one.

[Guest zipperzone]

>There are many stories

>about Richard Meiers, the architect. He only works in white,

>it is true, and it is hard on the eyes when the sun is out.

>Also, in the original plans, and they were built completely

>before it was noticed, he neglected to install any toilets

>anyplace. On opening day, they had thousands of people with

>urgency and someone finally realized the problem. They had to

>quickly bring in hundreds of port-a-potties. The buildings

>were later remodeled with bathrooms installed.

 

I don't for a minute mean to suggest that this is not true.

 

But it does boggle the mind. I find it impossible for the architect and all his engineers, the contractor, the people paying for the building and the LA civic employees who would have had to approve the plans and issue a building permit, to all miss this.

 

Are you sure this is not just another urban legend?

[Louis]

Well the National Art Gallery in Ottawa does dumb things too. They once puchased a picture from an artist. I forget his name, but they wanted one of his pictures so they paid I think over a million dollars for a work buy that guy. It was similar to a 4X8 foot sheet of plywood painted white. Nothing else on it.. it was just painted white.

If that's all it takes to become an artist...then sign me up....:-) I know I can do that, and you can have your choice, paint brush, roller or spray...:-)

[AdamSmith]

>Are you sure this is not just another urban legend?

 

An urban exaggeration. The argument afterward was whether he put in enough bathrooms.

[+ deej]

>The argument afterward was whether he put in enough bathrooms.

 

And, weird as it may seem, that's true to Getty's memory/legacy.

 

Getty would have hated the facility because he despised modern architecture. He would have approved of anything that encouraged people to make their visits brief. ;-)

[Guest Delaware Man]

I liked The Getty

 

Gentlemen

I really liked it. I was there not long after it opened in 1998.I went with friends of mine, both of whom then lived in WEHO and one of whom had a masters in art history. He thought the collection sucked. I liked it. But what do I know, I am just a dumb hick from Dullawhere.

By the way the wiews all the way to Long Beach from the grounds are spectacular. But what do I know, I just a dumb guy from Dullawhere?

[Epigonos]

RE: I liked The Getty

 

Hey Delaware Man

 

As much as I dislike both the collection and the architecture I HAVE TO AGREE WITH YOU that the location and views are to die for. It is especially nice this time of the year when the weather is clear, cool and crisp.

 

In spite of my feeling about the collection and the architecture I ALWAYS take visiting friends there becuase it is definitely worth a visit. In many ways it is very, Very, VERY Los Angeles.

[+ deej]

RE: I liked The Getty

 

Even the collection beats a kick in the head.

 

I have a background in bookbinding/paper conservation so the illuminated manuscripts can hold my attention for hours.

 

But the views from the upper floors of that facility are most definitely not to be missed.

[Karl-G]

Views of the Getty

 

You're right, it was a shortage of bathrooms, especially for women, that caused problems, not a total lack.

 

There is a nice site which has excerpts from dozens of books and articles about the Getty, with praise and negative criticism - about location, use of Travertine marble, collection, aethetics, gardens, views, Richard Meier.

 

http://academic.reed.edu/getty/architecture.html

[Traveler North]

RE: Views of the Getty

 

Have visited a number of museums built around private collections like to two Getty museums, the Gardiner in Boston and the Ringling Museum in Sarasota. I must say that among them, the new Getty is top notch. May not compare with art galleries in Boston, New York and Chicago but these belong to different league.

[Epigonos]

RE: Views of the Getty

 

Actually the nations large urban art museums do belong in a different league than the Getty -- the vast majority DO NOT have $5-billion endowments -- the Getty does. In recent years the Getty has been badly mismanaged by its President and Chief Executive Officer Barry Munitz. Prior to being hired by the Getty Board of Directors he was the Chancellor of the California State University System. Munitz almost immediately brought in a former student of his to act as his special assistant. Neither Munitz nor his assistant had any prior experience in leading an art institution. Munitz directed funds away from acquisitions and instituted numerous experimental education programs. His assistant alienated much of the Getty’s senior staff and little by little most of their best curators left. Because of many of Munitz’s questionable financial practices the Los Angeles Times began a series of very damaging investigative articles. These articles were so damning that the Getty Board of Directors was forced to request Munitz’s resignation. In the negotiated termination settlement Munitz agreed to forego his highly lucrative severance package and reimburse to Getty for many of his elaborate travel expenses. Munitz’s replacement Michael Brand has a solid background in art museum management but must rebuild the senior staff and reestablish respect for the Getty management team in both the local and the national art communities.

[Deckdq]

RE: Views of the Getty

 

I wouldn't say it is a bad collection.

 

It does not always appear unified in its ambitions, but it is not a bad collection.

 

First of all, there are really three major collections: that of Greek and Roman Antiquities (at the Getty Villa), that of European Art (including the Illuminated Manuscripts and Decorative Arts)(at the Getty Center), and the Photography collection (Getty Center).

 

The Greek and Roman Antiquities collection was always very good. Despite all the turmoil surrounding it in recent years, it has continued to grow in both quality and depth.

 

The European Art Collection (from the Medieval to the Early Modern period) was a bad collection when J. Paul handed it over to his museum. But, since his death and thanks largely to the stewardship of John Walsh, the previous museum director, the stuff that was second-rate has been discarded. The rest has been supplemented with some real masterpieces (e.g., the Mantegna, the Pontormo, the Van Gogh, among others).

 

It is never going to have the depth of an archival collection (like that at the Met) and it is never going to have the preciosity of a more individual collection (like that of the Norton Simon) for two reasons: The days of collecting old masters in depth is long gone. The stuff simply is not available. Two, depite its origins as the collection of an individual, the European Art Collection only came into its own under the auspices of the Getty as an institition. It is therefore not the result of any single person's vision.

 

As for the Photography collection, it is a real shame this stuff is not housed in its own museum. Perhaps one day. Of all three collections, it is the one that is most archival in its ambitions. It may indeed be the the best collection of photography in the world.

[Steven_Draker]

Exhibitions

 

The only exhibition that seemed to attract a lot of visitors last week was 'Icons from Sinai'

 

http://www.getty.edu/news/press/center/sinai_release06.html

 

Steven D.

http://www.hotsexystud.com/uk

[Luvs to Spank]

RE: I liked The Getty

 

Views FROM the Getty are spectacular! The gardens at the Getty are beautiful and worth the trip. But the views OF the Getty -- No! The Getty looks like someone with too much money moved an old electric power plant from Pittsburgh, PA, painted it white and dropped it on a hill in Los Angeles!:-)