Robert Indiana "LOVE" Donated to Huntington
 |
| Rockefeller Center installation of Robert Indiana's LOVE, 1966 (design) and 1999 (fabricated). The Huntington sculpture is from this edition. Image courtesy of The Robert Indiana Legacy Initiative. ©2026 The Robert Indiana Legacy Initiative LLC / Artists Rights Society (ARS), NY |
Robert Indiana (1928–2018) devised the distinctive, four-letter rendering in a 1964 drawing. Art historian Susan Ryan traces the idea further to an earlier drawing of the word "FUCK" on two lines, with the U slanted. Indiana made that drawing after his breakup from Ellsworth Kelly. The slanted U is said to have represented emotional vulnerability.
 |
| Museum of Modern Art holiday card, 1965 |
A small, painted version of LOVE became the basis of the Museum of Modern Art's holiday card in 1965. Its RGB color scheme was inspired by Kelly's paintings of a couple years earlier. In May 1966 Indiana produced the first LOVE sculpture in aluminum. That original was just 12 inches high. It has since been editioned (and pirated) in various sizes, materials, and languages. The 12-ft. size of the Kohl gift is the largest.
Wikipedia lists thirty-some versions in the U.S., many as public art outside a museum context. There's a 12-ft Corten steel version at Newfields (Indianapolis), and a 6-ft. cast, also Corten, at Crystal Bridges.
 |
| Corten steel-finish LOVE, 1999, at Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art, Bentonville, Ark. |
Indiana didn't love LOVE. He was annoyed at how it overshadowed everything else he did. Pirated versions were legion and difficult to prevent or prosecute. In the broader culture, LOVE was read as an anodyne logo for the 60s "Love Generation"—and as the epitome of "Pop art," a term that rankled Indiana.
Despite relatively ample supply, several LOVE sculptures have gone for seven figures. Christie's sold one for $4,114,500 in 2011. The Huntington sculpture is from an edition of five, with two artist's proofs.
At the Huntington LOVE augments a small group of New York Pop and Minimalist sculpture, such as an Andy Warhol Brillo Box (1964) and Tony Smith's 1966 bronze For W.A. In its outdoor setting, it will also invite comparison to Henry Huntington's collection of Rococo garden sculptures on the theme of love.
 |
| Attributed to Ange-Jacques Gabriel, Temple of Love, about 1765, in Huntington Rose Garden |
Comments
No wonder Kelly broke up with Indiana.
--- J. Garcin
See Kelly's "Window" paintings.
Through them, Kelly pursued an idea about art that was directly influenced by Duchamp, Kelly's so-called "already made."
On that note, the Glenstone catalogue for their recent Kelly exhibition is excellent. The catalogue includes an essay by Alex Da Corte. Good intro to all three artists (Duchamp+Kelly = Da Corte).
--- J. Garcin
But first back to the Cleveland Museum of Art, the Akron Art Museum (1850 to the present), the Allen Memorial Art Museum at Oberlin College, and the Butler Institute of American Art in Youngstown...if I can afford the gas.
> have donated
They're also contributing to a building for the performing arts near the Broad and a block away from Dataland. I wonder what they and the head of the Ahmanson Foundation think of this?:
Josephine Minutillo, Architectural Record:
When it comes to LACMA, people have had a lot to say for years....“They could have used mass timber instead of all that concrete.” “They would have been better off keeping the original complex.” “They should have engaged the public.”
....readers’ comments called the building “a crappy nonfunctional, poorly conceived objectional mishmash,” and “as inspiring as a wet mop.”
RECORD’s Los Angeles–based...Sarah Amelar had her doubts. But, on a private visit ahead of LACMA’s opening, she was enthralled, despite acknowledging many of the building’s drawbacks. At press time, other reports by those who got a sneak peek have concurred. [End quote]
LACMA Govan/Zumthor is better than LACMA Brown/Pereira, but something about its over 50-year-history always comes with asterisks.
For all its warts, I'd still want to visit the Geffen (partly because it's closer to me) than, by contrast, the Museum of Fina Arts Houston. But MFAH's (or Detroit's, Minneapolis's, St Louis's, etc) presentation (ie, the look of a place) seems to have fewer "oops" than LACMA does. Or what has long caused it to be as Wendy Beckett described, "relatively unappreciated."
LACMA has more of the "oops" energy of an LA Zoo compared with that of a San Diego Zoo. So whether a Richard Brown or Michael Govan, there's always a "oops!" hovering in the background.
Oh, well, just chalk it up to the DNA of the place.
What gems are hiding in the midwest?
--- J. Garcin
Cleveland is worth a journey all its own.
> hiding in the midwest?
> Cleveland is worth
> a journey all its own
https://youtu.be/4hc6tzPOGG8?si=PQQaEM7ytVHGYWzs
Now not only is the Museum of Fine Arts Houston making me really doubt the 50-plus-year history of LACMA, so is Cleveland. (Etc, etc, etc).
If a museum can't have a great collection, it better have at least a good architectural/aesthetic presentation. Or if it has a LACMA-quality presentation, it better have a great collection.
Incidentally, the Cleveland Museum of Art has 3 Van Goghs, LACMA in the past several months just barely got its first one.
I recall once thinking it was mainly the biggies of the museum world (eg, Paris, London, NYC, etc) that made LA's public museum look like rube-ville, I now realize a lot of 2nd-tier places do that too. That's in spite of years of sensing that LACMA was managed like a rinky-dink municipal museum, probably not too different from the one being built in Las Vegas.
When it comes to LACMA, Richard Brown/William Pereira, then Kenneth Donahue, then Earl Powell/Hardy Holzman Pfeiffer, then Andrea Rich and now Michael Govan/Peter Zumthor all seem to like being rubes. Why that is could be analogous to the way the San Diego Zoo has always come off innately professional, just the opposite for the LA Zoo.
Or the way certain NFL teams are always top tier and others are not. Or like the history of Yankees versus that of the Buccaneers.
Aspects of the Geffen Galleries don't reflect built-in professionalism---the rubes in charge don't mind metal wall brackets that are way too visible or an interior that gives off the vibes of a parking-garage or Public Storage building. Aspects of LACMA's website, special exhibitions and Youtube channel are the same way.
Richard Brown and William Pereira in 1965 were rubes, Earl Powell and Hardy Holzman Pfeiffer in 1986 were rubes, Michael Govan and Peter Zumthor in 2026 are still rubes.
Regrettably, rube is the modus operandi of LACMA.