Getty Center to Close for Updates; Reynolds "Mai" Debut Set
The Getty Center will close March 15, 2027, to allow "the most significant series of modernization initiatives since its 1997 opening." A miscellany of updates will span improvements to trams, air conditioning, art display, signage, rest rooms, and cell phone service. Reopening is planned for spring 2028, in time for the Olympics.
The East and South Pavilions are already closed for refurbishment.
The Getty Villa will remain open and will have an installation of artworks from the Getty Center.
Joshua Reynolds' Portrait of Mai, jointly owned with the National Portrait Gallery, London, will make its Getty Center debut six months before closing, on Sep. 15, 2026.
The Getty closure will overlap with that of the La Brea Pits and Page Museum, which closes after July 6, 2026, for a two-year refresh by Weiss/Manfredi.
Comments
New York is waiting for your call!
> ...including a gallery featuring
> a selection of paintings from
> the Museum’s collection at
> the Getty Center...
LACMA starting in 2020 (when its buildings were torn down) not doing something like that in the Resnick Pavilion has always annoyed me.
A format where a gallery in the Resnick is instead turned over to works that resemble the chandeliers in the Met Opera House in NYC - created by a NYC-based artist, no less - is one reason why I've always been suspicious of Michael Govan. His lack of transparency since before 2020 regarding his plans with Zumthor is another reason.
When a lack of enough money is hurting an organization, that's sad but forgivable. MOCA sounds like it's coming to another one of those oh-oh moments. Eli Broad saved them the previous time, now I've read that Govan again wants LACMA to take them over. As though his museum becoming a "de facto contemporary art museum, but not a very good one" isn't enough for him.
The Geffen Galleries, along with BCAM and Resnick too (also Japanese Pavilion?), containing contemporary art shows that it can't be claimed LACMA doesn't necessarily display object A, object B or object C because of a lack of enough space or lack of enough money.
I notice a lot of readers' feedback in the NY Times and other sites about articles regarding the new Zumthor building doesn't sound exactly way more positive than it would have been in the 1960s if social media existed back then:
Google AI:
Richard F. Brown, the founding director of LACMA, was forced to resign in 1966, shortly after the museum opened in 1965. His departure followed intense friction with the board of trustees over administrative control and criticism of the new Pereira-designed campus.
Forced Resignation: Brown was accused by trustees of "administrative inadequacies" and a lack of delegation... Brown cited "irreconcilable policy and operation difficulties" between professional staff and trustees.
The new buildings were controversial, leading to a public outcry that contributed to pressure on leadership.
https://youtu.be/0wlTxqSZ870?si=x5pEnBSyqsCZX8nb
^ Just as the conventional wisdom of San Francisco versus Los Angeles (referred to by some readers' comments in the NY Times), etc, may or may not apply in the 2020s, the same thing can be said about a museum in the Midwest dating back to 1904 (St Louis Art Museum---SLAM) compared with a museum in the West, such as one on Wilshire Blvd, dating back to 1965 and now in 2026.
In a way, a LACMA or Getty not doing top-notch improvement projects in the 2020s is analogous to a 20-year-old grandson being beaten up by his 85-year-old grandmother. LOL.
SLAM's lower-height galleries remind me of the ground floor of the old Ahmanson Gallery. Shorter ceilings are never ideal for exhibit spaces.
LA Times:
The nearly $724-million new building designed by Pritzker Prize-winning architect Peter Zumthor...has been a lightning rod for split opinions for nearly two decades — and it seems not much has changed. Each article attracted its fair share of reader comments — for and against — the new building. I'm rounding up nine that best reflect reader consensus.
1. "Ugh. I hate that building. It does nothing to activate the street itself and Wilshire should be an active urban street with thousands of people walking... What a blotch."
2. "One will always wonder: what would Frank [Gehry] have done if he had ended up with the commission for replacing LACMA's core campus… A high priest of design has given Los Angeles a plebian concrete maze,...”
3. "I love LACMA's collection and have been going several times a year for a long time. Very excited to check out the new galleries. Contrary to a lot of other commenters, I find the architecture of the new building fresh and exciting…"
4. "I loved the old museum. I really hope I’m wrong, but I’m afraid the new one will be disappointing. Less display space, chaotic organization and galleries that on paper look like warehouse spaces make me wonder how successful the new museum will be."
5. "I'm amazed that it is almost 11:00 AM and I am posting the first comment here. Does nobody reading the L.A. Times care about this very expensive reimagining of our County Art Museum… How is this reduced gallery capacity with ever-changing displays providing access to art to the people that helped to fund it?"
6. "I look forward to visiting this museum and experiencing its uniqueness."
7. "It's one of the worst decisions in art-world history. Destroy perfectly functional galleries and spend hundreds of millions on smaller galleries. And they are ugly. It's a mockery of art to place a beautiful painting on those concrete walls."
8. "I knew there would be a bunch of negative Nellies in the comment section lol. I LOVE the new building and interior spaces (as pictured) I can’t wait to see and experience the unique curatorial displays!"
9. "How exciting for Los Angeles! I can't wait to see it and love that we now have such a world class forward thinking art museum in L.A. Money well spent." [End quote]
As much as things change (eg, Zumthor in 2026), some things never change (Pereira in 1965).
Since LACMA's director in the early 1960s, Richard Brown, wanted Mies van der Rohe as architect, I discounted Brown's role in Pereira's design. But I now realize, even if Brown didn't care for Pereira, the director must have (or should have) influenced the design.
He could have suggested fewer floors, the buildings be connected together (beyond just an underground, employees-only level), non-modular walls that most top museums for decades prior to 1965 had successfully worked with, and a ground level with a higher ceiling level---and something better than a brown-tile floor.
So just as Michael Govan has to take a lot of responsibility for Peter Zumthor's work in 2026, Richard Brown in 1965 was also very responsible for a good portion of William Pereira's work.
History is repeating itself. Oh, well. That's LA, baby.
The fifth comment as it pertains to the LA Times being kind of sleepy, and the over 280 comments the NY Times has generated regarding the same subject might be another metaphor for the historic differences between not just a LACMA and Metropolitan Museum, but between 2 publications too.
NY Times, April 10:
Yogamom, San Diego:
Thank you for introducing me to this museum. The first picture definitely reminded me of an old motel we have stayed in located in Palos Verdes. So much so, that I thought it was an article about the renovation of similar hotels! Enough said, the pictures were a bit depressing and the interior feels barren. Better pictures would help. I plan to visit. [End quote}
^ "Old motel" made me LOL.
And these comments just remind me that tripadvisor and yelp are full of one star reviews of the greatest places on earth. Some people think the Grand Canyon ain't so grand, doesn't mean it's so.
> that LA will ever
> be a one-museum
> town.
However, if I were an out-of-towner trying to get a sense of what a city's public institution is all about, I'd look at this for LACMA:
https://www.youtube.com/@lacma/videos
Then, for contrast, I'd look at this for the Metropolitan:
https://www.youtube.com/@metmuseum/videos
^ That alone indicates LACMA's director and staffers don't mind looking like (to quote J. Garcin) a bunch of rubes. If Govan were on the ball, he'd have cracked down on the staffer(s) running LACMA's social media, particularly its Youtube account.
When the retired art critic of the LA Times was harping on the seriousness of LACMA, I originally did wonder if he was perhaps laying it on a bit too thick. But after looking at their Youtube account and current online website, I'd say he was too easygoing.
> in this country are
> abominable.
This was posted yesterday by the Met:
https://youtu.be/y5vnCnB4JcE?si=vgPJaNTaZd43_bGt
Nothing as authoritative or serious-minded has been posted - even for the past few years - to LACMA's Youtube account. But several videos with a professional (or museum-connoisseur type) touch are available on the Metropolitan Museum's account.
They make LACMA's videos (many of them with low viewership counts) come off like something posted to a page managed by the Fresno Wellness & Lifestyle Center.
J. Garcin sometimes implies that people who dismiss Govan and his LACMA are so-called rubes, which doesn't make sense. Not when the real hayseeds are, in fact, the ones located at 5905 Wilshire Blvd.
In another way, Govan and his LACMA's devotion to chintzy or generic contemporary art (or videos reminiscent of what a regional townhall produces) is this era's version of devotees of the 1800s who were into the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood.
Richard Brown botched up aspects of LACMA in the 1960s, Michael Govan is doing the same thing to LACMA in the 2020s. And Brown at least had the excuse he was managing a new museum (on its own outside of Exposition Park,) without much of a track record.
If there were R ratings for museums, the Met would be an "R1: Doctoral Universities – Very high research spending and doctorate production."
The Met staff do solid postdoc-level work. Why can't others?
Part of it's due to money/budget. But even the Getty's Youtube account has a less sophisticated, more regional tone or look about it---not to mention their new logo is kind of weak.
https://www.youtube.com/@gettymuseum/videos
And, yea, beauty (or cheap, unsophisticated, unprofessional, etc) is altogether in the eye of the beholder. Or you say potahto, I say potato. .
Also, even when money is no object, in any organization a J. Garcin (etc) will insist his POV makes sense, while other people's do not. So LACMA's professionalism seems more "rube" because too many people treat the museum like (to mention another cliche) the Emperor wearing new clothes.
"Ooo, Michael, your management is so good, your Zumthor building is so wonderful, and LACMA's collection should be treated like a gimmick too. And your being hip and trendy is just what the doctor ordered!"
btw, I wonder if Govan and his people considered how access to LACMA's new auditorium on the south side of Wilshire Blvd is affected by its distance from major access points, particularly those of parking. I hope so, but considering their Youtube page, good judgment from them shouldn't be taken for granted.
Richard Brown was the brain behind the Norton Simon collection. Simon was a skilled negotiator, but it was Brown who informed his tastes. When Brown left LACMA to run the newly-formed Kimbell Museum, Simon said this about him: “The city of Los Angeles lost a lot when it lost him, and the city of Fort Worth gained much from his presence. He was, frankly, my first teacher in the art world, and he had a pretty damned good eye.”
When at LACMA, Brown wanted van der Rohe to design the original building. His choice was vetoed by the rube Howard F. Ahmanson Sr.. That and the Board's general deference to Ahmanson ended up alienating Simon who picked up all his toys (art) and retreated to his offices in Fullerton.
Brown, of course, went on to select Louis Kahn to design the Kimbell Museum. The Kahn/Kimbell building is considered a masterpiece. Today, Ahmanson's building is in some landfill. All's well that ends well.
--- J. Garcin
“He [Brown] knew that at this late date you couldn't build an encyclopedic collection,” a museum colleague said yesterday, “and so his concern was to bring things together from every culture that had the unity of quality. He was trying to realize an institution that was concerned with excellence, that would provide the finest of visual experiences for the viewer.”
Mr. Brown had set out with that same aim in Los Angeles, where in 1954 he was hired as chief curator of art at what was then the Los Angeles County Museum of History, Science and Art. With Norton Simon, he worked to develop a separate art museum, and in the early 1960's the Los Angeles County Museum of Art was created, with Mr. Brown as its first director. But a major difference with trustees over the architect for the new structure (Mr. Brown wanted Mies van der Rohe; the trustees chose a local designer, William Perera) compounded by other conflicts with the new board, led Mr. Brown to take the Fort Worth [Kimbell] job in 1966.
[...] With characteristic zeal, the small, compactly built director set about fulfilling the assignment. “We will make it [Kimbell Museum] a work of art in its own right,” he said of the prospective museum. He hired Kahn for the job, and worked with him closely throughout the entire process. The resulting $6.5 million building, a highly original structure composed of a series of semicircular vaults, is considered one of the finest structures in the country for the display of art, and one of the architect's greatest achievements.
The NYT misspelled Pereira's name. How appropriate... In any case, if Brown could work with Kahn to create the Kimbell, the blame for the "Perera" buildings clearly lies elsewhere.
--- J. Garcin
> rube!
Hi, hick! lol.
The details about Brown indicate he was certainly around when Pereira's buildings were being planned. I wasn't totally sure if Brown had worked at LACMA not much before it opened on Wilshire Blvd. But, whoa, he dates back to 1954.
Even if he didn't choose Pereira, he sure as hell could/should have have pushed the architect to change the basic flaws of his design. That included too many floors, 3 separate buildings, galleries with flimsy moveable walls (which gave the museum even more of a "tract house" look--and I don't believe were ever adjusted either).
Although Govan has dealt with the issue of too many floors, LACMA;s campus now has 4 (count 'em 4) separate buildings. And instead of a building that evokes a 1960's-era bank building (eg, Ahmanson's Home Savings), the Geffen evokes a parking garage.
> rarely do curators
> determine the output.
But the director certainly has a say in what a museum's Youtube account looks like and what it's all about. And definitely main internet page too.
LACMA's online presence gives off the tone of the Hayseed Academy of Social Workers and Rube Lifestyle Consultants.
But that's just it. The public needs access to curators' scholarly output. If a curator studies an artist, then post a 1,000 word essay and teach the public what you've learned. Museums should be universities, with curators as professors, and the public as students. What good is a museum that does not teach?
Why can't other leading museums in this country follow suit?
> museums in this country
> follow suit?
Because in the words of J Garcin, they're managed by a bunch of rubes. lol.
Sarcasm aside, so-called standards and so-called sophistication have long varied between cities and countries. Europe vs the US, East Coast vs West Coast. North America vs South America. Etc.
In the case of Michael Govan and his LACMA, after being reminded of what "leading museums" are like throughout the US, much less other parts of the world (eg, Cairo's new Grand Egyptian Museum), I do wonder if he is more of a "rube" than I'd have estimated he was. LACMA's Youtube page, for example, is a joke. It's reminiscent of a vlog managed by the Bakersfield Social Services Dept.