Quote:
Originally Posted by Quixote
^ Do you know if the Getty is in the running every time a Monet/Manet/Renoir/Degas/Cezanne is up for auction? Their not being an encyclopedic museum means they can concentrate on specific genres and target “statement pieces” (Young Man at His Window, Le Printemps, Modern Rome — Campo Vaccino, Arii Matamoe), but also “filler pieces.” What I would like to see them target with their funds are more works by Michelangelo and a Caravaggio.
|
I doubt they bid frequently. It's probably a whole process when they decide they want something. Even though collecting in depth on singular artists is already one of their strategies. They bought two Manets within a decade, a Rembrandt in a collection full of Rembrandts and two Watteaus close to each other.
The standards at the Getty are really high. What goes up for auction isn't necessarily good enough for the Getty. They get a couple pieces a year that they spend upwards of around $40M on, and if they spend that much money it's a piece that's often going to be either the best or second best painting of that artist we have in this country, and in already excellent condition. But a Michelangelo (they do have a few drawings) and Caravaggio rarely come up, and if they do, the Getty would likely get priced out. The last Da Vinci went for $480M dollars, way out of the Getty's league. But even if it was a fraction of the cost, I kind of doubt the Getty would have wanted it anyway. They don't have a habit of buying just to name drop. It has to be really good.
Timothy Potts said the direction of the Museum was going to be about jumping on opportunities that arise. This is what he said when he was hired to direct the Getty:
Quote:
|
“One thing we don’t have and probably never will have is a Leonardo, at least a painting. We don’t have a Caravaggio. Of course we’d really like to acquire works by those artists.“But if you have a rule or set of priorities and you decide you’re going to wait until a great Caravaggio comes along, you are going to miss 20 other extraordinary opportunities which could end up never being repeatable and the Caravaggio still won’t come along, and you’re left holding nothing.”
|
Imagine if they had saved up for that Di Vinci. They wouldn't have gotten it anyway, and if they did, they would have gotten a lackluster Da Vinci for $480M when they could have gotten 10 other blockbuster paintings at the top of the artists' careers, that would arguably do more for the museum than a single painting.
And they've recently said that consideration of what other LA museums have in their collections was part of their decision process and acquisition strategy. No other museum is making this level of blockbuster acquisitions on a yearly basis.
Prev
Linear Mode
