 |
| Annibale Carracci, Study of a Tree, about 1600. J. Paul Getty Museum |
The Getty Museum bought six European drawings from the Feb. 4, 2026,
auction of the Diane A. Nixon collection at Sotheby's, New York. Nixon, a former model for Emilio Pucci, was a trustee of the Morgan Library & Museum and vice-president of the non-profit publishing
Master Drawings. Nixon's collection has had a considerable mystique since it was shown anonymously at the Morgan and the National Gallery of Art in 2007.
The Getty bought the sale's second most expensive lot, an Annibale Carracci ink and black chalk
Study of a Tree that went for $863,600. (Most expensive was
a Mattia Preti that soared to $1.76 million, nearly six times the high estimate.) Getty curator Julian Brooks'
post on the auction says that they were outbid on several drawings.
Almost 16 inches high, the Carracci exemplifies the artist's empirical approach to nature. It's one of several Carracci drawings of trees, trunks, and roots that have been likened to portraits rather than compositional studies.
The Getty also secured sheets from the Nixon sale by Baccio Bandinelli ($228,600), Domenico Campagnola ($152,400), John Linnell, Edward Burne-Jones, and Odilon Redon. Several will appear in the Getty Center's space for new drawing acquisitions starting June 30.
 |
| Domenico Campagnola, Landscape with Fortified City and Rising Sun, about 1516–1517 |
Domenico Campagnola was trained as a printmaker. This early ink drawing shows the influence of Dürer in Venice.  |
| Baccio Bandinelli, The Descent from the Cross, about 1528-1529 |
A large, finished sheet by Baccio Bandinelli is the only known study for a bronze relief presented to Emperor Charles V in 1529. Praised by Vasari, the bronze is now lost.
 |
| John Linnell, A Farmhouse at Shoreham, about 1830. Purchased with funds provided by the Disegno Group |
John Linnell was a repeat visitor to Samuel Palmer's home in Shoreham. Until recently,
A Farmhouse at Shoreham was assigned to Palmer.
 |
| Edward Burne-Jones, Phineas and His Courtiers Turned into Stone, about 1876–1878 |
Phineus and His Courtiers Turned into Stone is one of many preparatory studies for the music room of future British Prime Minister Arthur Balfour. Burne-Jones worked on the mural project for over a decade, leaving it unfinished. Barely visible at left is the white chalk outline of Perseus brandishing the head of Medusa. The 25-9/16-in-wide sheet uses blue watercolor, brown ink, and white gouache to model figures turned to stone.
 |
| Odilon Redon, Head of a Young Girl in Profile, 1895 |
Head of a Young Girl documents Redon's infatuation with the Pre-Raphaelites, dating to the 1889 exhibition in Paris of Burne-Jones'
King Cophetua and the Beggar-Maid. The red chalk medium stands between Redon's
noirs and later works in pastel and oil.
Redon sold
Head of a Young Girl to Baron Robert de Domecy, who commissioned
the pastel portrait of his wife in the Getty collection. All the Getty's works by Redon will go on view this summer in "Odilon Redon: Otherworldly Visions," at the Getty Center July 14–Oct, 18.
Comments
The stunning Mattia Preti double-sided sheet, that got away, was stunningly expensive, and exactly something like what Getty should be pursuing. Getty's loss is grave.
The two near-full-length portraits of Preti's heroic Knights of Malta are the likes Getty may never get to buy again.
--- J. Garcin
I'm thinking Balthus.
I wonder if Getty was the underbidder. If yes, to me, that's all the more sad.
... There are artists who have painted two of them. Here I am thinking of Durer's Adam and Eve (tree and cat) and Bosch's Garden of Earthly Delights (tree and cat). In both, the cat/tree are situated in Paradise.
It's curious that cat and tree are together at the beginning. At the other existential extreme, bed/cock are associated with death. See Munch's Between the Clock and the Bed.
--- J. Garcin
According to the Sotheby's catalog, "Fortescue, a cousin of Anne Boleyn, was a favourite of Henry VIII, but was executed in 1539 when refusing to take the Oath of Supremacy."
The artist's treatment of his subjects is extraordinarily well drawn.
> Brooks' post on the
> auction
Getty. edu:
…we had acquired six drawings for the collection but lost several others (contrary to popular belief, the department has limited resources and other folks bid higher)... The drawing was purchased with funds given by members of the Disegno Group, a council that supports the work of the department through acquisitions. [End quote]
If the Getty's funds and budget still require outside support, their staffers hadn't be living way too large, particularly for a (quote, unquote) non-profit. Which makes what this guy did even more irresponsible, if not truly fraudulent. Incidentally, he sits on the board of the Broad Museum.
CBC, Feb 2006:
The president of the J. Paul Getty Trust [Barry Munitz]...has resigned amid allegations of improper use of the trust's money for excessive travel and personal benefit.
The Council on Foundations, the main umbrella group for non-profit foundations in the U.S., placed the Getty Trust on probation in December after examining charges about inappropriate spending. The California attorney general's office also launched an investigation into Munitz's spending habits last June after an investigative article appeared in the Los Angeles Times questioning Munitz's luxurious travel and perks.
Munitz will receive no severance package and will pay the Getty Trust $250,000 US, without admitting any wrongdoing, to resolve any outstanding disputes. The money is what the trust estimates Munitz owed because of costs that should not have been charged to the trust, Getty officials say.
We still don't know if Getty was the underbidder.
But for the Carracci tree study, the other drawings that Getty purchased were dispensible.
Buy the finest quality in the world, and leave no regret.
Google it and be awed.
> exists for good reasons.
Which is very necessary, but I also wonder how much basic good judgment or technical/creative sophistication affects an institution, including the Getty.
In the case of LACMA, a lot of their screw-ups haven't been necessarily due to not enough money, but because their staffers have shown really poor judgment, maybe also surprisingly bad taste too.
Example: Michael Govan several years ago hired an artist (and probably paid him good money too) who wrapped the top of a gallery of Pre-Columbian art with heavy draperies, sort of a hint of Elvis-on-velvet.
Another example, this sculpture is affixed to a wall with visually intrusive black metal brackets. I doubt that display format is due to LACMA's budget being too small. I recall when I first saw a preview photo of the artwork in the Geffen, I assumed it still had a temporary-only wall bracket. Wrong.
https://collections.lacma.org/object/37387
So if the Getty has a lot of so-called rubes in its organization just as LACMA does (since 1965 too!), even big money won't offset that.
Answer: LACMA has not been run by "rubes" in the traditional sense, but the museum and its leadership—notably long-time director Michael Govan—have faced harsh criticism from architectural critics and art purists who view some of their bold decisions as "rube-ish" or disconnected from standard museum practices. {End quote]
LOL. The AI overview cites this blog as the source.
Incidentally, J Garcin was the first to use "rubes," but if the shoe fits (in the non-traditional sense), kick LACMA in the butt with it.
Question for Google/AI: "Why has LACMA been run by hicks?" (Since 1965 too)
Answer: If you meant "Hicks" as a reference to rural or uncultured individuals, this clashes with the leadership and patrons of the institution. However, the premise likely stems from the term being slang for "outsiders."
Critics and locals frequently direct this frustration at Director Michael Govan and his Board of Trustees, often because they feel LACMA’s leadership is comprised of out-of-state or international figures who have at times seemed tone-deaf to local history.
A "Non-Hierarchical" Display: The new David Geffen Galleries eschew traditional geographical and chronological displays in favor of a fluid, unconventional, "cabinet of curiosities" approach. Critics argue this subverts the encyclopedic mission of a world-class art museum. [End quote]
Since you and J. Garcin are non-LA "outsiders," you're hicks too. lol.
BTW, the people who redid a building in Lincoln Center a few years ago, also named for David Geffen, gave it interiors that seemingly were done by a bunch of hix from the stix.
A: They pinch every penny.
*
To Getty: Greatness requires devotion, blood and sweat.
--- J. Garcin
There's hope.
--- J. Garcin
Answer: Whether founding museum director Richard Brown or current director Michael Govan was a bigger "rube" is debated by art critics and architecture bloggers, particularly in the context of their massive, transformative—and often polarizing—construction projects for the Los Angeles County Museum of Art.
Critics use the term to critique the perceived "provincial" or "tacky" choices in museum planning, layout, and donor recognition:
Richard Brown
The Case: As LACMA's founding director in the 1960s, Brown championed the construction of William Pereira's original Wilshire Boulevard campus. Critics argue the design forced the museum in the wrong direction, producing an aesthetic that critics claim felt less sophisticated than major East Coast or European institutions. He made a famous (and wildly inaccurate) prediction that the La Brea Tar Pits' dinosaur bones would soon be "covered with a newer, more elegant layer of civilization," only to be thwarted by seeping hydrocarbon sludge.
Michael Govan
The Case: Govan oversaw a massive, multi-decade overhaul culminating in the David Geffen Galleries. Detractors label Govan a "flaky rube" for certain unorthodox, "non-hierarchical" curatorial choices (like using floating thematic galleries instead of chronological historical displays) and tacky approaches to donor recognition (like categorizing tiers based on raw dollar amount brackets, such as "$100 million or more"). [End quote]
LOL. AI is grabbing comments posted to this blog, but the way Govan has allowed the donor wall to be inscribed really is (ta-da!) tacky. Did I say it was tacky? It's really tacky. It's not too different from the interior of the Geffen concert building in NYC.
Hix there, hix here. And are hicks affecting the way the Getty is operating too (eg, passive acquisition tactics, mishandling of funds)?
I recall a display in one of its galleries (back before the center in Brentwood had been built) that was so visually unprofessional, a museum in Fresno would have been embarrassed. Same thing with one of the rooms in LACMA's Ahmanson Gallery too. Much less the gallery in the now-demolished Arts of America building that had the look of "Municipal Artists and Drapery Showroom."
> Brown went along
> with this choice only
> because he had to
I originally assumed he became a part of LACMA not too much before it had moved from Expo Park. But then I read he actually had been with the organization for longer than that.
I also assumed since he preferred Mies van der Rohe, the blame for the choice of William Pereira and his work was totally not his fault. But Brown should have tweaked Pereira's design, not too different from the way that Govan has influenced Zumthor (eg, making the Geffen have one floor only).
If Brown had insisted the Ahmanson Gallery contain no more than two floors (3 at the max), the substandard layout of a major part of the 1965 campus would have been avoided.
The space added in the early 1980s to the north side of the Ahmanson actually should have been where the square footage of the 4th floor (if not also 3rd floor) was from day one.
Brown also should have pushed Pereira to connect all the buildings and waste less space with open plazas and little-used passageways that marched around the 3 buildings.
So Brown regrettably has been one of the "rubes" of LACMA's history, no less than what Donahue, Powell and, now, Govan have been. Not sure about Andrea Rich and Graham Beal, who left for Detroit's art museum.
I used to think, hmm, Beal must have been a hack---who the heck wants to move to Motown? But the history of DIA actually has been better (or no more full of oops!) than that of LACMA's.
1965, Los Angeles is dying...
--- J. Garcin
He knows nothing of art.
> of art.
Exactly ! Richard Brown, Kenneth Donahue, Earl Powell, Michael Govan.
The various directors of LACMA to varying degrees have been rubes. And if not hicks when it comes to the subject of art per se, they certainly have been hayseeds when it comes to a sense of aesthetics and professionalism. Which for a director of an art museum is analogous to a guy trying to get into the NBA who, although very coordinated ("I totally respect Caravaggio, Velázquez, Picasso and Louis Kahn!"), is 5'4" tall. Or vice versa.
Preach. That's couch-cushion money! Honestly!
Do your jobs! Be bold, and mighty [$$] forces will come to your aid. Make like a Hoover, and vacuum everything you can find!
Per A.I.:
The Getty Trust: Organized primarily as a private operating foundation, the Getty is legally required by federal tax codes to spend a specific percentage of its endowment on its own programs each year.