Baz, Nani, and I slogged through LA traffic to visit the Getty museum yesterday. Incredible architectural design! The museum’s great white walls made it seem like a castle atop the cityscape. They are made of rough blocks of fossilized travertine, each of which produces a different tone when struck; a massive xylophone. Some pics:

Lion on the Lookout. Gerome. About 1885. Oil on canvas affixed to panel.
Their main exhibit at the moment is the life work of Gerome, a french painter and sculptor. He had quite a fondness for lions, and even acquired an aged circus lion as a pet.

Horn. Facon de Venise, possibly Spanish, 1600s or 1700s
Free-Blown amber glass with lattimo canes (thin sticks of milky white glass) and applied decoration

Self Portrait, about 1857-1858, Edgar Degas. He painted this at twenty three, not intending it for public view.

French decorative furniture, 1700s I think. Possibly belonged to a tax collector.

Portrait of Pope Clement VIII (Ippolito Aldobrandini), 1600-1601, Designed by Jacopo Ligozzi, Produced by Tadda (Romolo di Francesco Ferrucci)
Marble, lapis lazuli, mother-of-pearl, limestone, and calcite on silicate black stone; gilt-bronze frame

Turkey, Meissen manufactory, about 1733, model by Johann Joachim Kandler
Hand-paste porcelain

Delusions of Grandeur, 1967, Rene Magritte

View of the rebar trees and one of the pavilions from the central garden. 16,000 tons of these fossilized travertine blocks form the museum’s five pavilions and countless walls over a 110 acre hillside.

The cactus garden and Los Angeles.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Getty

  1. Pat says:

    Hello all, I’ve been there, and loved the outside gardens


  2. Ben's nervous mother says:

    Somehow this museum is consistent with the Yellowstone pic’s–majestic, supernatural. What a wonderful side trip.

    Josh got Mrs. Dillon for 4th grade. Cath is leaving for Mexico. Therese/Frank/Liz are heading to Alaska.

    We’re still here.

  3. Every piece in that museum was made from things that originally came from the earth. Are those things more beautiful in their natural environment, or more beautiful in their alterations? A question of aesthetics, I suppose.
    (from Ben’s aunt)

    • They’re beautiful in both, and different kinds of beauty in both. I would say it’s a very subjective thing, and I think worrying about whether something is more beautiful than something else detracts from the aesthetic experience. I also think an interesting question to ask would be which is more appealing, something beautiful in its natural environment, or an artistic representation of that beauty? But then I guess the advantage of an artistic representation is that it influences your perception of what it is representing, making you take a deeper glance into it, and in doing so imbuing it with more meaning, beauty, etc.
      (from Ben’s aunt’s nephew)
      Have fun in Alaska!!!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s