Getty Adds a Luis de Morales
 |
| Luis de Morales, Christ Carrying the Cross, 1565. Oil on panel. J. Paul Getty Museum |
The Getty Museum has acquired a painting by Luis de Morales (about 1509–1586). Christ Carrying the Cross is said to be a rare example of a fully autograph painting by the Spanish Renaissance master. The image measures 24-7/16 by 20-1/4 in.
Morales drew eclectic inspiration from the Italian Renaissance and Netherlandish and German naturalism. In turn his art was likely an influence on his much younger contemporary El Greco. Known as "the Divine," Morales exemplifies the mystic zeitgeist of 16th-century Spain, the age of Saints Teresa of Ávila and John of the Cross. Created for personal devotion, the Getty painting has hyperreal treatment of teardrops, eyelashes, bruises, and bleeding wounds. The cross is an improbable exercise in Renaissance perspective and deluxe cabinetwork.
Morales did several versions of Christ Carrying the Cross, some full-length. For some reason an 18th- or 19-century owner of the Getty painting decided to make it just a few inches bigger by nailing wood strips to all four sides of the panel and extending the composition. This entailed overpainting some of Morales' original work. Getty conservator Kari Rayner painstakingly removed the overpainting. It was considered too risky to remove the wood extensions, so they will be concealed by a specially fabricated frame.
Morales' morbid piety was not to the taste of Gilded Age Americans (save for Archer Huntington, who bought several of his paintings for the Hispanic Society, New York). More recently Morales has gained a following with scholars, aficionados, and curators, leading to institutional purchases by the Minneapolis Institute of Art (in 1962), Meadows Museum (1995), Yale University Art Gallery (2012), Metropolitan Museum (2015), Wadsworth Atheneum (2018), and Detroit Institute of Arts (2019). The Prado, which owns 23 Morales paintings, organized an exhibition in 2015.
The Getty painting was auctioned in Germany in 2021. It was then assigned to Morales and studio and given a low estimate of 10,000 euros. Bidders recognized its quality, and the painting went for 1.18 million euros. Daniel Katz Gallery, London, acquired the painting and sold it to the Getty in a private sale.
The Getty does not have many Spanish paintings, and the Morales probably becomes the only one from the 16th century. It joins a small Spanish Pietà (1490-1500) and an El Greco Christ on the Cross (1600-1610).
Christ Carrying the Cross is to go on view May 1, 2025 in gallery N205.
 |
| Getty associate conservator Kari Rayner with Christ Carrying the Cross, showing extensions |
Comments
--- J. Garcin
> to the taste of Gilded Age
> Americans
> It was then assigned to
> Morales and studio and
> given a low estimate of
> 10,000 euros.
The different tastes and judgment of people, including that of presumed experts at auction houses, never cease to amaze me. Throw in a lot of politics - generally progressive - and it's no wonder that the gatekeepers of culture (along with money and power) are prone to being very subjective---either too permissive or too dismissive.
Only an idiot would think that connoisseurship is "progressive."
It is arguably the most conservative activity in art history.
I'm far more interested in your view of the art. Please.
> point is tiresome
Is it fair of me to mention you often (tiresomely so, or routinely so?) use as a point of reference an artwork that happens to be in the collections of a museum in NYC or the East Coast? I don't mind that (actually, it's fine with me), but this blog is generally themed to LA or the West Coast.
When I comment, unlike you, I discuss the merits, or demerits, of a particular LA work. I refer to New York because it's my local stomping ground. But I could use London or Paris, if that suits you.
Note, again, how you chimed in about anything __other__ than your view of the art. Disappointing.
Do you care about art? If yes, why?
> anything __other__ than your
> view of the art.
I find the subject of art collections - and who judges them (eg, gatekeepers) or how they're displayed (the nature of a museum) - in general more interesting than the details of a specific work. In your case, you often personalize (tiresomely or routinely so?) the subject based on how a blog entry here can be related to what you've seen (or happen to know is) in an art collection near you.
By the way, there are parts of social media where hundreds or thousands of comments are posted - such as in the NY or LA Times - about some issue, so I'll never nitpick about whoever posts or whatever is posted to this blog. As far as I'm concerned, the more the merrier.
I think I believe in heaven now.
If you can, come see it!
What you keep finding/seeing is "woke" ideology and DEI, even in areas of collecting that are highly conservative. It's an obsession, not reality.
Mistakenly, you think that displaying art by national/racial origin is "woke" or "progressive." It is NOT. For example, that's how things were shown at the Met until 2023 when the Met adopted a mixed chronological/thematic order.
... Of course, you are NOT interested in the details of specific works. You are here to weaponize art against identity politics and "wokeness." We get it. You don't.
--- J. Garcin
> displaying art by national/
> racial origin is "woke" or
> "progressive."
Whatever the ideology, it's casually racist or bigoted. The mindset that certain skilled, talented contemporary artists should be lumped together *not* with other skilled, talented contemporary artists but with artists generally from much older periods and different styles of art and have only the commonality or race, gender, ethnicity or nationality is kind of a slap in the face. It comes off as a version of "some of my best friends are..."
It segregates certain contemporary artists and gives them the appearance of not being ready to play with the other kids---or the big boys, big girls in the world of contemporary art.