Submitted by Sir Joshua, Dec 11, 2006 07:51

Sooner or later, someone unimpressed by money is going to make the statement that the Getty is in fact a very odd museum. Having visited their Malibu instillation decades ago when the walls were still overly upholstered to a comic degree. and the collection was a sliver of what it is now, it struck me that the Getty's only reason for existing was to justify the founders social akward self-promoting death-wish. John Paul (not quite French) was somewhat strange and anti-social. Probably a business genius of sorts, but personally, a struggling introvert looking to make a public mark for himself. This museum was founded not for the public but for the founder to say to the public, 'Look at what I've got.' Getty lived in England (probably to help his image) and would loved to have had a stately house collection that he could open to the public. I get the feeling from the odd curatorial and administrative people at the Getty that they have no real sense of performing for the public, but only for their notoriously head strong board. That is unfortunate, because they all come off as an extension of their wacko founder. Thank God for regular art museums, like the Met, Boston's MFA, Chicago's Art Institute, etc. The founding mentality really DOES make a difference. The Met gave back the Euphroneous krater because they had eagerly aquired it to educate the public. The Getty just seems to be amassing gaudy trinkets. Even their painting collection is oddly spotty and directionless.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.