Quote:
Originally Posted by ocman
The photography collection is the most obvious area that could branch off for a third location.
[...] But the Getty's weird governing structure still makes the museum vulnerable once Cuno and Potts move on. The Getty is so close to having an indisputably great paintings collection. I can see it reaching that point some time in the next 10-20 years, assuming 1 major acquisition a year as they've been doing.
|
I would not be surprised if internal discussions have begun on the subject of expanding to a third venue. And though my desire for symmetry would prefer that the Getty find a site on another LA hill with a great view to go with the hill sites with great views it already has, I think you're right. It would be a good thing for the Getty to engage the city below. With the subway coming to its doorstop, it really wouldn't have to go far. A ground floor site near the Hammer would create another cultural cluster in the city that would be very accessible to the public.
As to Getty Board, I think they learned their lesson. Plus, Pott's and Cuno's tenure at the Getty are not synchronous. That's a good thing. At least, one of them will be around to select the other's replacement.
As a whole, it is already a great collection, arguably one of the world's best photography, manuscript, and drawing collections. Like you, I think they can fill the holes in the painting collection in the next 10 to 20 years. The big private money today is chasing contemporary art or slowly cashing in its old master holdings. The Getty really has no museum rival that can match their purchasing power in the old master market or their ability to identify works in private collections that might be sale. All of that bodes well for the growth and increasing quality of the painting collection.
(It is an existing time to be in LA with all the things that are developing. The Getty is a significant part of that.)
Prev
Linear Mode
