The Getty Museum and London National Gallery
Should Slip on a Banana Peel
Illustration by Erika Pahk
It’s Mine! No It’s Not, It’s Mine!
The J. Paul Getty Museum in Los Angeles and the National Gallery of Art in London may both need to be sent to their rooms without dinner or dessert. The two museums are currently bickering over Raphael’s “Mado-nna of the Pinks.”
According to The New York Times, the painting depicts the virgin mother playing with her infant son. The painting belongs to the Duke of Northumberland, whose family has owned it for over a century, and for the past decade the painting has been on loan to London’s National Gallery.
However, the Duke decided he would sell the painting to the Getty for $50 million, in order to pay for the preservation of Alnwick Castle, his family home in Northumberland. Currently, Charles Saumarez-Smith, director of the National Gallery, is trying to raise the $50 million to keep the painting in Britain.
Further screwing the National Gallery is the fact that the current level of government funding in Britain is strapped. In a statement issued by the National Gallery to The New York Times, the gallery stated: “[The gallery’s efforts] would be gravely hampered by the fact that the current level of government funding does not allow for any acquisitions whatsoever.”
Still, in order for the painting to leave Britain, the government must issue an export license. But there is no word yet about whether or not the gallery will try to halt the painting’s move to L.A. However, many gallery officials believe that the licensing will be halted for at least six months to give the gallery a chance to raise the $50 million.
J. Paul Getty’s basic argument against National’s efforts to retain the painting is that the National Gallery already has so many Raphaels, while the Getty has none, so they should be given dibs on the “Pinks.” And National Gallery argued that paintings are best seen alongside other relevant paintings — meaning that since they have most, they should have them all.
Tsk, tsk, tsk. Both museums are hereby sentenced to a three day suspension on the planet of unbridled greed (National) and pettiness (Getty).
Gone Bananas!
Looking for a place to hold a meaningless, gratuitous performance art project? Try Washington Street, Brooklyn, New York. This was the site of a rather appetizing installation by artist Doug Fishbone in early November. Fishbone piled 17,000 bananas into a conical heap, that took five hours to arrange, and measured nearly six-feet high and 10 feet in diameter when completed.
According to a blurb in The New Yorker, written by Elizabeth Kolbert, Fishbone, age 33, got the idea for the installation while living in Ecuador. In the city of Cuenca, Fishbone saw a huge pile of plantains being sold on the side of the road as animal feed and thought “the thing was such a powerful image. ... Something just triggered in my head: ‘I have to do this with bananas.’”
Really?
Fishbone first constructed the installation in Cuenca using 25,000 bananas. Fishbone has also littered the streets of Guyaquil, Ecuador, and the streets of Piotrkow Trybunalski, Poland. And then New York.
In other perishable art projects, Fishbone recently (in September) exhibited a model of his head, sculpted out of gyro meat and twirling on a spit. To his mother’s dismay, the piece is currently being stored in her freezer.
Well, when you can’t afford metal or alabaster, use Conchita!
Bush, Don’t Bomb Iraq. Think of all the Pretty Colors
The Art Newspaper writer, David D’Arcy, reported that collectors, curators, lawyers, and art patrons have joined the throngs of moderates when it comes to the subject of war with Iraq. However, their hesitancy about the war has little to do with the potential loss of lives, the lack of real proof of weapons of mass destruction, or even the potential anger from the rest of the world at an unsupported invasion. No, their reason: A war could destroy the cultural heritage of Iraq.
The initiative to protect Iraq’s cultural heritage is headed by Arthur Houghton, a Middle East specialist and former antiquities curator at the J. Paul Getty Museum. Houghton and his supporters seek to protect Iraq’s cultural heritage, something they realized needed to be done following the U.S. government’s disregard for historical and archaeological sites during the 1991 Gulf War.
According to D’Arcy’s article, experts estimate that the number of archaeological sites in Iraq could be anywhere between 10,000 and 100,000. They warn that these sites face a greater risk than they did 10 years ago because of the greater American determination to topple the Iraqi regime.
The U.S. observes the Hague Convention of 1954, which prohibits the targeting of cultural and religious sites in war. However, according to D’Arcy, Washington never ratified the accord, in part to retain its option to use nuclear weapons against the Soviet Union.
Well, there is something to be said for preserving history and heritage; but what’s the point if there is no one alive to appreciate it? Good luck Mr. Houghton!