Collection and Identity: A Reappraisal of J. Paul Getty’s Collecting

by

Kirsten Gabrielle Desperrier

A Thesis submitted to

Sonoma State University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

in

History

Dr. Steve Estes, Jr.

Dr. Michelle Jolly

Dr. Samuel Cohen

Copyright 2018 By Kirsten Gabrielle Desperrier

Authorization for Reproduction of Master’s Thesis

I grant permission for the print or digital reproduction of this thesis in its entirety, without further authorization from me, on the condition that the person or agency requesting reproduction absorb the cost and provide proper acknowledgment of authorship.

iii

Collection and Identity: A Reappraisal of J. Paul Getty’s Ancient Art Collecting

Thesis by Kirsten Gabrielle Desperrier

ABSTRACT

Purpose of Study: To examine J. Paul Getty’s ancient art collection that he acquired within in his life-time. The motivation behind Getty’s art collecting and philanthropy are examined and reassessed, as well as his inspiration for the founding of his museum the Getty . The history of ancient Greco-Roman art collectors from , 17th- 19th century Britain, and 20th century American collectors are analyzed in relation to Getty’s place in the history of ancient art collectors. The influence of the Getty Villa on the intellectual identity of is explored, as is Getty’s lasting legacy on the museum landscape of the area.

Procedure: To assess J. Paul Getty as a collector and philanthropist by using his autobiographies and personal journals from 1938-1976. The Getty Family Papers include the history of Getty’s ancient art collecting, and provided documents, such as receipts, customs documents, inventory lists and correspondence between Getty and art dealers. These primary source documents were cross referenced with other primary and secondary sources. The Dr. Norman Neuerburg Papers also provided a history of the research, design, and construction of the Getty Villa as well as providing the reaction of the media to the museum.

Findings: J. Paul Getty was found to be an intellectual ancient art collector who educated himself on Greco-Roman art through the study of books and by visitation to ancient sites. He also employed scholars to guide his study both in museums and at archeological sites. Getty utilized his elite social network of collectors and art dealers to further his ability to acquire ancient art. The motivation to found his museum was one of altruism and he wanted to elevate the individual and society through art appreciation.

Conclusion: J. Paul Getty collected ancient Greco-Roman ancient art not for monetary gain, but was a serious art connoisseur that had a real intellectual interest in the ancient world. In the process of changing his own intellectual identity Getty sought to change society through art. Getty’s legacy through his philanthropy has influenced the cultural and intellectual identity of the city of Los Angeles and the public at large.

MA Program: History Date: May 3, 2018 Sonoma State University

iv

Table of Contents

Chapter Page

Introduction…………………………………………………………...1

I. Collectors………………………………………………………….17

It Began in Rome…………………………………………………18

Rediscovering the Ancients……………………………………….29

All Great Men Want Their Place in History……………………....40

II. Getty-The Collector…………………………………...... 48

The Early Years…………………………………………………...48

Getty Begins to Collect……………………………………………52

III. Getty and His Museum……………………………………………71

The Getty Villa…………………………………………………....78

IV. Conclusion- Getty’s Legacy……………………………………....91

Bibliography……………………………………………………....101

v 1

INTRODUCTION

J. Paul Getty is an enigmatic and complicated figure from the twentieth century.

He is well known for being the world’s wealthiest man, his immense oil empire, for being a womanizer, and for his dysfunctional family life. Beyond all of this tabloid fodder is a story about a man who was one of the great collectors of ancient Roman and Greek art in the modern age. His collection is one of largest in America, only behind the Metropolitan

Museum of Art in New York and the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston.1 As a young man

Getty began collecting, and in 1939 he purchased his first piece of Roman art.2 In this same year Getty on one of his many visits to Rome wrote in his journal about his experience at the forum: “Sitting on the steps of the basilica…I felt the life of the old, old days.”3 Getty collected many different types of art, but it was the ancient Greco-Roman world that captured his imagination. Collecting art was a lifelong pursuit, that would culminate in the founding the Getty Villa museum.

Getty had his own opinions about art, collecting, and philanthropy. “The true collector does not acquire objects for himself alone,” Getty wrote. He believed that art could change society, arguing, “In my opinion an individual without any love of the arts cannot be considered completely civilized,”, adding, “At the same time, it is extremely difficult and sometimes impossible, to interest people in works of art unless they can see them and know something about them. It was for this reason that I established the J. Paul

1 Robert Lenzner, The Great Getty, (New York, Crown Publishers, Inc., 1985), 195. 2 J.P. Getty, The Joys of Collecting, (Los Angeles, J. Paul Getty Trust, 1965), ix. 3 J.P. Getty Diary, Oct 14, 1939, The , Digital Collections, accessed November 17, 2017, http://rosettaapp.getty.edu:1801/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE279271&change_lng=.

2

Getty Museum.”4 Getty was even more blunt in his autobiography As I See It when he wrote, “The difference between a barbarian and a full-fledged member of a cultivated society is an individual’s attitude toward fine art.”5 While Getty was one of the great philanthropic men of our time, the motivation behind his actions have met with criticisms and disdain. Upon the closer examination of the secondary sources that focus on Getty’s dysfunctional personal life, they also viewed Getty’s philanthropy and collecting with much cynicism and disbelief. These judgements range from Getty’s collection impulse being purely ego-driven and about social status, to his philanthropy being for investment or just wanting a tax write off. Getty was an imperfect and complicated man and this will not be an aggrandizing biographical sketch of J.P. Getty. What has been written about

Getty usually falls into two categories, and either portray him as a villain or a saint.

The original intent of this thesis was to research Getty’s ancient art collection that he had personally acquired and what was his motivation. In the process of this research I discovered that Getty was not viewed as an intellectual collector, or even as a collector that appreciated art in secondary sources. One facet of this thesis is to illustrate that Getty was not a one-dimensional art collector and refute the claims that he acquired art for financial gain. My aim is to take an objective look at Getty as a collector, an intellectual, and a philanthropist, while exploring how he shaped his own intellectual identity. In the process of Getty’s own transformation he sought to change the identity of the West Coast by bringing art to Los Angeles. Getty’s philanthropy and museum played a vital part in the evolution of the intellectual and cultural landscape of Los Angeles.

4 J.P. Getty. The Joys of Collecting, 2. 5 J.P. Getty, As I See It, (Los Angeles, Prentice-Hall, 1976), 276.

3

In this thesis I examine three very different time periods, Ancient Rome, the

British Empire, and twentieth century America, which are separated by hundreds and thousands of years. Terms such as social status and intellectual identity are applied and used to explain social norms and personal mores of the time. While these terms may seem uniform in their definitions when applied to each period, they are not. There are certain nuances in the meaning of the terms. For instance, social status will not mean the same in twentieth century America as it did in Ancient Rome. As a consequence, key terms will be defined at appropriate junctures within the thesis. While Getty emulated men from

Ancient Rome, the British Empire and his own time, terms like intellectual identity can’t be generalized and will have specific meaning when applied to him.

For Getty his intellectual identity was complex. He was an American at heart who loved hamburgers and pancakes but became a devoted anglophile who lived the last quarter century of his life in Europe. He styled himself after the English gentry, starting with a classical education and ended with a country estate. He was a cunning businessman, dedicated to oil exploration. He never retired and worked until his death.

Yet Getty was more than just an American oilman, as he identified with ancient Rome and felt a kinship with the likes of and Julius Caesar. He was an avid art collector, and his true passion was ancient Greco-Roman art. The ancient world captured

Getty’s imagination and would lead to the connection with British ancient art collectors.

The connection Britain felt towards ancient Rome was profound. Ancient Greek and

Roman texts were an integral part of a gentlemen’s classical education, which Getty received at Oxford, and the ancient Greco-Roman world were part of who the British were. These two cultures—ancient Roman and the British gentry—shaped who Getty was

4 both internally and externally. Connections to these cultures, particularly to their art, underpinned his intellectual identity.

The influence of Greek and Roman art played a critical role in Getty’s intellectual identity. He built upon his classical education and was able to acquire many of the physical monuments of the ancient world he had read about. Getty recorded in his journal in 1953: “The thoughtful man with a classical education, such as mine, is over whelmed with a sense of the glorious past and must regret his arrival some sixteen centuries too late.”6 The connection between ancient Greco-Roman texts and classical art helped create the identity of ancient art collectors. Getty crafted his own intellectual identity through education and art, and he wanted to do the same with society through his art collection and later his museum. Getty collected many different types of art from Persian rugs and

Renaissance paintings to eighteenth century French furniture, but it was the ancient

Roman and Greek art that were his true passions.

Examining Getty’s personal diaries, a very different picture comes to light in comparison to his public image. Over and over again Getty talked about imagining himself in the ancient world. He fantasized about how buildings would have looked in ancient times and what life would have been like. Getty wrote in his diary on May 2,

1952, “What a glorious sight the area from the Coliseum to the Temple of Trajan must have been.”7 In his journals he wrote mini-essays about the ancient Roman sites, chronicling the damage they sustained in earthquakes and how they were taken apart and used for other building and ground up for lime. These were not the musings of a collector

6 J.P. Getty Diary, May 22, 1953, The Getty Foundation, Digital Collections, accessed November 1, 2017, http://rosettaapp.getty.edu:1801/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE282960&change_lng=. 7 J.P. Getty Diary, May 2, 1952, The Getty Foundation, Digital Collections, accessed November 1, 2017, http://rosettaapp.getty.edu:1801/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE282960&change_lng=.

5 who is bought art just for an investment, but of someone who felt deeply connected with the ancient past.

Getty is part of a long tradition of ancient art connoisseurs. Collecting ancient art has been a pastime of the affluent since ancient Rome. Political legitimacy, cultural influence, and expressions of wealth and power have all driven collectors to acquire ancient art. For this thesis I will be focusing on how ancient art has been used to shape intellectual identity. I will also examine how art and the act of collecting have influenced the individual and culture. I begin with examples in ancient Rome, as Romans were great connoisseurs of Hellenistic art. Additionally, during the Age of Enlightenment the

European elite class became captivated by the material culture of the ancient world.

Lastly, I conclude with a study of American collectors during the twentieth century who carried on the tradition of collecting ancient art.

The scholarship on J.P. Getty has mainly focused on his business and his personal life, which tend to villainize Getty or have a narrow view of his life. It is not the intent of this paper to explore either of these aspects of his life, yet how Getty’s relationship with art is portrayed in these books is pertinent to my research. In the article The Odd Mr.

Getty, by Robert Lubar, Getty is portrayed as a collector that is only out for the bargain and without care for the art itself. Lubar argues, “Getty’s obsessive search for a bargain clouded his judgement as a collector.”8 Author Robert Lenzner who wrote a biography entitled, The Great Getty, posits that Getty’s motivation for collecting art and donating to museums was for the tax write offs and extends this theory to the Getty Villa. Lenzner called Getty a “miserly art collector” and it is examples like these that make up the bulk

8 Robert Lubar, “The Odd Mr. Getty”, Fortune Magazine, March 17, 1986, accessed November 17, 2017, http://archive.fortune.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1986/03/17/67242/index.htm.

6 of work written about Getty’s art collecting.9 Such damning biographies are typical of much popular work written about Getty’s art collecting.

The published writings on Getty’s collecting from the Getty Foundation are on the opposite end of the spectrum. The details surrounding Getty’s collecting tend to be superficial and brief. For instance, The J. Paul Getty Museum, Handbook of the

Antiquities Collection, summarizes his collecting in six short paragraphs.10 The details surrounding the actual act of collecting are condensed to a brief observation that Getty acquired pieces, “many (of his pieces) from old and distinguished collections.” The only piece that is specifically written about is the Lansdowne Herakles, which is by far the most famous work that Getty bought on his own. This amazing sculpture was purchased in 1951 from Lord Lansdowne, but the details behind the purchase are missing.11 The

Getty Foundation publications are more interested in creating a narrative about the museum, than exploring Getty’s motivation or the story behind his collecting.

This thesis will explore the reappraisal of J. Paul Getty and his ancient Greek and

Roman art collection that he acquired for his personal collection. In the process the research will explain how collectors have used ancient art to shape the intellectual identity of our society and thus our culture. Through analyzing other important collectors in history I will illustrate the long tradition of art being used to shape intellectual identity it its many different forms. What these collectors choose to acquire and how they then present this art to the public has influenced how we feel and identify ourselves. At an even deeper level the collections often inform society what should be considered art.

9 Lenzner, xvi. 10 The J. Paul Getty Trust, The J. Paul Getty Museum, Handbook of the Antiquities Collection, Second edition, (Los Angeles, Getty Publications, 2010), 1-2. 11 Ibid., xiv.

7

J.P. Getty wrote several books, two of which pertain to my area of research- As I

See It, his autobiography and The Joys of Collecting, a book on collecting art.12-13 While these two books give wonderful information, these were meant to burnish Getty’s public image, and thus have a biased perspective. Primary sources for J.P. Getty and his ancient art collection are plentiful. I have conducted research in Getty’s personal journals spanning from 1938-1976, that have been digitized by the Getty Foundation, but are not transcribed, and are not edited. Getty wrote extensively in his published works and his personal journals about art collecting. The Getty Family Papers in the Special Collections at the Getty Library, which provided valuable material such as receipts, customs forms, inventory lists and correspondence between Getty and his art dealers.14 The primary sources were cross referenced with information in his journals and autobiographies with the material in the Getty archives.

The construction of the Getty Villa has been written about extensively by scholars and the Getty Foundation. This is due, in part, to the fact that the Getty Villa is based on the Villa dei Papiri in Herculaneum, which has been studied by scholars since 1750. The classic primary source on the Villa dei Papiri is Karl Weber’s monograph and drawings of the villa from the excavations he carried out in the 1750’s. His plans are so precise that they were used as basis for the Getty Villa, and are still used by scholars today. There are three main points of interest about the Villa dei Papiri: The Greek library, the extensive art collection, and the villa and its many facets.15 The book The Villa dei Papyri at

12 Getty, As I See It, 1976. 13 Getty, The Joys of Collecting, 1967. 14 J. Paul Getty Family Collected Papers, Boxes 1-15, , Special Collections, Los Angeles, July 28, 2017. 15 Christopher Charles Parslow, Rediscovering Antiquity: Karl Weber and the Excavation of Herculaneum, Pompeii, and Stabiae. 1st Pbk. ed. (Cambridge: New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 78.

8

Herculaneum, by Mantha Zamarkoupi is a collection of essays that provides some of the most up-to-date research on the Villa dei Papyri. The contributors to the book are scholars from different disciplines that range from archeologists and art historians to papyrologists.16 This interdisciplinary approach to the research provides a more complete perspective to the villa than if it was just a historical examination. The Getty Foundation has published several books that include information on the Villa dei Papiri, such as the

Guide to the Getty Villa and The J. Paul Getty Museum, Handbook of the Antiquities

Collection.17 While most the writings are for the general public there is an analysis of villa, which is more comprehensive than their texts about Getty’s collecting. The Getty

Foundation did publish Carol Mattusch’s The Villa dei Papyri at Herculaneum, which is a 390-page extensive study of the sculpture collection that was found at the villa, but she also dedicates over sixty pages to the villa itself. Mattusch also includes sections on collectors that span from the ancient Romans to the English and the Grand Tour.18

Art collection is a subject that has been written about since ancient Rome. Ancient texts by Livy, Plutarch, and Cicero, who all wrote about art collectors will be utilized in my research. Romans were ardent collectors of Hellenistic art that was then assimilated into Roman culture. These Roman writers were acutely aware of the influence material culture had on individuals and society. There are several books and essays that examine the philhellenism of Roman collectors and the extent of its influence. Jerome J. Pollitt’s essay The Impact of Greek Art on Rome published in 1978 is still highly regarded and

16 Mantha Zarmakoupi, The at Herculaneum: Archaeology, Reception, and Digital Reconstruction, (Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, 2010). 17 The J. Paul Getty Trust, Guide to the Getty Villa, (Los Angeles, Getty Publications, 2005); The J. Paul Getty Trust, The J. Paul Getty Museum, Handbook of the Antiquities, 2010. 18 Carol C. Mattusch, The Villa Dei Papiri at Herculaneum, (Los Angeles: Getty Publications, 2005).

9 cited as a foundational essay on the subject.19 There are also several secondary sources that discuss ancient Roman art collectors and the impact they had on Roman culture and politics.

The recent study of collectors has emerged as cultural awareness in our society has changed. The book Possession, by Erin L. Thompson carries on the scholarship of collectors and offers fresh take on the subject. Thompson provides a survey of collecting spanning from the ancient era to the present and explores the motivations behind collectors.20 There are two books that have recently been published that discuss the more controversial aspects of museums and collecting, and both will contribute to my research.

Keeping Their Marbles by Tiffany Jenkins discusses the issue of repatriation of artifacts from Western museums, but also delves into the history of collecting, particularly during

European Imperialism.21 Artifacts and Allegiances by Peggy Levitt discusses how state- run museums use exhibits to shape national identity.22 These two books as well as other materials explore European collectors from the Age of Enlightenment as a bridge that links ancient Romans to twentieth century collectors like Getty. It is important to examine how art is perceived within society, as this gives insight into the influence that it has upon culture and thought, and therefore identity.

The first chapter will examine art collectors through history, for to understand

Getty as a collector you have to understand the history of collecting ancient art. The chapter will be broken down into three sections, and will examine collectors from three

19 Jerome J. Pollitt, “The Impact of Greek Art on Rome”, Transactions of the American Philological Association (1974-) 108 (1978): 155-74. 20 Erin L. Thompson, Possession, (New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 2016). 21 Tiffany Jenkins, Keeping Their Marbles, (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2016). 22 Peggy Levitt, Artifacts and Allegiances, (Oakland, University of California Press, 2015).

10 time periods, ancient Rome, the British Empire, and twentieth century America. These periods are by no means the only time in history when ancient Greco-Roman art has been collected, but they are pertinent to the research on Getty. I will use collectors from each time period to illustrate how they used ancient art to shape intellectual identity and for social status. The main theme relating to the various collectors is what impact they had on their culture and asking the question what were the motivations. Making generalizations about the motivations of why people collect can be problematic. Social status, intellectual identity, and the display of wealth have all been enduring motivations for the collection of ancient art. Less understood, is one aspect of collecting that hovers in the back ground, but is ever present is the impulse to collect for the sake of collecting.

The appreciation of beautiful art and the need to possess it should never be underestimated as a motivation to acquire. Collecting is a very personal activity and individual reasons can vary from person to person. Very few collectors are one- dimensional and their motivations are often multifaceted. No matter what the motivation ancient Greco-Roman art has been an influence on identity as individuals and as a society.

I will begin with the analysis of how the Romans used Hellenistic art to shape their intellectual identity and the impact it had on their society. I am starting with the

Romans as they are at the core of the collecting tradition in Western civilization, and because Europeans would later model themselves after ancient Rome. I will use elite

Roman society to give general examples of the subject, and then will narrow down my analysis by giving specific examples of well-known Roman collectors. For instance, the presumed owner of the Villa dei Papiri, Lucius Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus and his art

11 collection will be used as a case study.23 This will also provide essential information on the Getty Villa that was modeled after the Villa dei Papiri, which will be discussed later in the paper. Roman collectors surrounded themselves with Hellenistic material culture and this would change their society, and what they considered to be art.

Hellenistic art was used to display power and wealth by the Roman ruling class.

Yet to say that Romans collected art just for social status would be far too one- dimensional and the motivation behind why they became such avid collectors is far more complicated. Author Erin L. Thompson says that to equate art collecting to social status seeking is, “reductionist, dismissive and not sufficient.”24 There were deeper intellectual and psychological factors that were behind the impulse of collecting art. The motivation to create identity and to link themselves to the ancient Hellenistic past, military and political legitimacy in both the private and public realms were all factors as to why the

Romans became art collectors. The Romans had a predilection to link themselves with the ancient past, and this was accomplished, in part, by collecting Hellenistic art. The material culture that they surrounded themselves with, both publicly and privately, became a symbol of their identity.

The Roman art collections that have survived for us to study are primarily sculpture, both bronze and marble. It was the Greek sculpture that played such a pivotal role in connecting the Romans to Hellenistic culture. For example, the sculpture collection that was found at the Villa dei Papiri provide an understanding as to what was collected and how the art was used to shape identity. Of all the sculptures at the villa most of them are of Hellenistic subject matter, and the ratio is fifteen Greek subjects to

23 Zarmakoupi, 78. 24 Thompson, 2.

12 one Roman, yet not all of the statues were produced in . This data supports the theory that it was more the subject matter of a statue than the origin that mattered to collectors. Examining the influence the Roman elite had on their own society by building lavish like the Villa dei Papiri helps give insight into why the cultural elite of our own time, like Getty, do the same.

For the second section I will analyze how the British have used collecting Greco-

Roman art for their own intellectual identity with an emphasis on the Age of

Enlightenment. Imperialism and colonialism worked in conjunction during this time contributing to an increase in collecting of ancient art. Europeans had been studying the classical world for generations and during the Age of Enlightenment they acquired ancient art from and Greece in large quantities. While there were many Europeans making the journey to Italy, the term ‘Grand Tour’ for this thesis will be used to reference the British. It was a rite of passage for young aristocratic men, and it was a link between the written ancient texts they studied to the physical world of their time. The

Grand Tour gave them intellectual legitimacy, and in the process they were able to acquire ‘souvenirs’ to bring back home. Political systems, education, fashion and architecture were all influenced by the ancient Romans and Greeks during this era. The artifacts, whether they were carved jewels or large Greek temples were desirable collectables for the affluent Europeans. For the scope of this paper I focus on Britain.

Like the French and the Germans, they were a colonial power and they had ample opportunity to acquire artifacts. Another important reason to focus on Britain is that the

British collectors during this time were many the same families from which J.P. Getty would acquire pieces from centuries later.

13

I will end chapter one with an examination of twentieth century American collectors and how their actions have influenced our culture. The United States, and certainly the West, was viewed by Europeans as socially and culturally inferior.

American collectors sought to advance their social status and intellectual legitimacy by acquiring ancient art. Americans wanted to be seen as equals to their European peers, both materially and intellectually. The very act of collecting ancient art was a way to prove that affluent Americans could be part of the exclusive club of high society.

As the United States economy grew in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries Americans would undertake their own version of the Grand Tour, and brought back art from Europe. Rich Americans had the wealth, but not the social legitimacy, which they so craved. Much like the British from previous centuries Americans gained intellectual and social legitimacy from collecting ancient art. These new collectors were the inheritors of the collecting tradition from the Age of Enlightenment and used art to shape their identity.

It is the large scale collector that I am interested in for this paper, and not so much the individual who brings home a piece or two. Collecting ancient Greco-Roman art took a tremendous amount of capital and would be restricted to individuals who have the inclination and the means to acquire pieces. These social elites were dictating what we considered art and culture by their collecting and philanthropy. The field of private large scale ancient art collectors in the US is rather limited. American museums did acquire

Roman and Hellenistic art, but they will not be covered in the scope of this paper, as it is the private collectors that will be examined, not curators from museums. An overview of some of the most salient collectors of ancient art in twentieth century America, such as

14

Norbert Schimmel, will be examined. The focus will shift to the West Coast and two men stand out who had the money and power to collect on a grand scale, William Randolph

Hearst and Getty will be compared. Hearst was a contemporary and a competitor with

J.P. Getty for ancient art. Getty and Hearst had the money that enabled them to collect and live the lifestyle of an aristocrat.

The second chapter will focus on J.P. Getty and will examine his ancient art collection, his intellectual identity, and his philosophy about philanthropy. I will start with a brief summary of his early years and his business. While I have deliberately stayed clear of writing about his business, it must be explained how he was able to purchase the art; this section will also shed light on his social standing that accompanied his wealth.

Getty traveled around the world from a young age and exposure to different cultures influenced his love of history, culture, and art. Getty furthered his education, by reading books, visiting ancient sites and museums, and by hiring scholars to teach him about art.

In the process of becoming a collector and expanding his knowledge base Getty forged relationships with art dealers, curators, scholars, museums, and his fellow collectors.25

Getty’s collecting habits will be reviewed, and this analysis shows that he was not just buying from dealers and auction houses, but was utilizing his elite social networks with the aristocracy and other collectors to purchase art. These social networks were reflective of the elite cultural identity that had been shaped by centuries of collecting and classical learning that Getty was able to be part of due to his wealth and education. Getty’s social networks and elite social status contributed to his ability to acquire pieces, many of which were not even on the market, but were bought by word of mouth. Getty wanted to link

25 The J. Paul Getty Museum, Handbook to the Antiquities Collection, xi.

15 himself not just with the ancient word, but with the illustrious collectors from the past.

The chapter will end with an examination of Getty’s thoughts on philanthropy, art, museums, and the public.

The final chapter will focus on the Getty’s museum, the Getty Villa, and how through his art collection and museum, he aimed to educate and enhance the intellectual identity of the public. The chapter will open with a general overview of how museums and art collections influence the public in ways that are both obvious and subtle. Other very affluent collectors that were based on the West Coast, such as William Randolph

Hearst and Norton Simon will be assessed as well as their contribution to museums in

Los Angeles.

I will examine the influence the Getty Villa has had on the museums of Los

Angeles and then explore the impact on the public at large. Through exploring why Getty was a collector and how he shaped his own intellect insight can be gained into what were his motivations. Why one choses to open a museum is complex, and Getty’s motivations are not easy to discern. He is not always seen as an altruistic individual, yet he did open a museum that is free to the public with his own money. In Getty’s writing he says that he wanted to bring ancient Rome to California, explaining “The principle reason concerns the collection of Greek and Roman art which the museum managed to acquire…and what could be more logical that to display it in a classical building where it might have been originally seen.”26 Getty was a very complicated man. On many levels he appears to have been unlikeable. Thus, the motivations behind his philanthropy have been met with cynicism. Whether it was his ego or a sincere motivation to make art accessible to the

26 The J. Paul Getty Trust, Guide to the Getty Villa, 12.

16 public it is hard to say, but what is true is that J.P. Getty left 700 hundred million dollars in Getty oil shares to the Getty Trust, which operates the Getty Museums. The trust is now worth over nine billion dollars.27

The conclusion examines Getty’s legacy and the Getty Trust that today is one of the world’s wealthiest art institutions. The various institutions that have come out of the

Trust have furthered artistic identity and scholarship in Los Angeles.28 While I address the criticisms and controversy around the Getty Foundation, I will ultimately argue that J.

Paul Getty’s place in history is not just about his oil business, or being the wealthiest man in the world, but as a legitimate art collector and philanthropist.

27 The Getty Foundation, accessed on November 17, 2017, http://www.getty.edu/about/whoweare/history.html. 28 The J. Paul Getty Trust, Guide to the Getty Villa, 7.

17

CHAPTER ONE

Collectors

Some people collect bottle caps. Others collect rare ancient art. Collections can be seen as both worthless low-brow garbage and priceless high-brow art. For individuals their collections mean something to them, whether it is sentimental memories or part of their intellectual identity. Art collectors use their collections for various purposes. One of the most obvious reasons is for social status, but there are deeper intellectual and psychological factors that are behind the impulse of collecting art. The motivations are directly linked to the individual and how they utilize the art. Art shapes identity in ways that are both subtle and obvious, and influences our culture and what we consider art.

There is a long tradition of individuals collecting ancient art. The scope of this thesis begins with the Romans and will end with twentieth century collectors. The relationship between art and identity is based on several factors. Some are internal, such as the emotional and psychological factors, but the presence of art in the physical world also contributes to one’s identity. The material culture one chooses to surround oneself with plays a vital role in shaping identity, from art and architecture to how we view our place in history. Art is part of our internal and external identity, whether it is in our private homes or public museums. Classical art had an encompassing influence on British culture. The study of classical literature stimulated the collection of ancient Greco-

Roman art. The influence of classical antiquities would start the Neoclassical age where, fashion, theatre, music, philosophy, visual arts, and architecture all were inspired by the ancient past. As the centuries passed, to appreciate classical art would be a hallmark for what it meant to be cultured and a member of the elite class.

18

It Began in Rome

For Romans collecting Hellenistic art was transformative. It changed their culture and how they viewed their place in the world. The elite Romans used Hellenism to shape their intellectual identity, and one way this was accomplished was through the use of art and architecture. How intellectual identity and social status are defined in relation to ancient Romans is specific to the historical context of the time. Like all civilizations generalizations are difficult to apply to a society as a whole. The elite class of ancient

Rome is no different, yet for the sake of clarity, definitions must be made. The social status of the ruling class of Ancient Rome was entangled with wealth, political, familial, and military power. All of these factors determined the social status of an individual.

Intellectual identity was also a factor in defining social status. The intellectual identity of the ruling class was complex; it was not just how an individual viewed himself internally, but on how he was viewed by his peers. Hellenism influenced the Romans on several fronts, but for this thesis the primary focus will be the influence of Hellenistic art on ancient Rome and how it shaped the intellectual identity of Roman elites. How Romans lived, what art they collected, how they chose to build their villas, what kind of philosophy they followed all made up who they were as an individual. The Romans used

Hellenistic art to display political power, as a show of wealth, and intellectual prowess that elevated them above their peers.1 The Roman villa and Hellenistic art are hard to separate and worked in tandem with each other to shape Roman culture. The social, physical, psychological, and emotional aspects of art and the villa all contributed to the influence of elite Roman intellectual identity and will be explored in this chapter.

1 Thompson, 23.

19

From 211 BCE through 200 CE the expansion of the empire Roman evolved for a variety of reasons such as, increased wealth, Hellenistic influence, slaves and a political system that was under pressure to change. Wealth and power were being consolidated in a few men at the very top who wielded great influence. Consuls and generals had immense wealth and were able to raise and pay legions on their own, and this was a threat to the very foundations of Rome. At the same time Hellenism had become very visible in

Roman society through philosophy, language, art, and architecture. Hellenism was a symbol of the evolving culture and became a target for elites, like Cato the Elder, who objected to the changes in Roman society.

Once Rome conquered the Italian peninsula, and the surrounding islands, Greek art was brought back to Rome in astonishing quantities. There ensued a fierce debate among the Roman elite on the relationship between Hellenistic art and Roman society.

Scholar Jerome J. Pollitt in his paper “The Impact of Greek Art on Rome”, claims that this was an argument and salient issue from roughly the second century during the period of expansion through the reign of Vespasian in 79 AD. Pollitt cites Plutarch who pinpoints the sack of Syracuse as the time when Hellenistic art entered Rome.2 Plutarch claims that it was this major event in which Roman culture was altered by Hellenism, and that “Prior to this,” Rome “neither had nor even knew of these exquisite refined things…rather it was full of barbaric weapons and bloody spoils”3 This claim seems questionable, as Rome had been exposed to Hellenistic art long before the fall of

Syracuse. What had changed was the quantity and purpose of the art that was now

2 Jerome J. Pollitt, “The Impact of Greek Art on Rome”, Transactions of the American Philological Association (1974-) 108 (1978): 155-74, 168. 3 Ibid., 156.

20 inundating Rome. The Romans were now conquering the ancient Hellenistic world, and not just the uncivilized tribes around Rome. The new material culture that Romans were now exposed to challenged their cultural norms and Roman values.

The Roman elite existed in an extremely stratified society and were supposed to adhere to very specific social mores. These included political, cultural and familial norms. To live by Roman ideology was to practice moderation, and to display wealth in an ostentatious manner was not acceptable. A Roman man should conduct himself with restraint, but as luxury goods were brought to Rome the reality of how Romans lived changed. Sumptuary laws passed in the second century tried to control the display of wealth. In a society whose ideal citizen was the soldier-farmer. Hellenistic culture must have been hard for some to comprehend, but for many it was greedily received into daily life.

There were two main opinions in Rome as to what role Hellenistic art should play in their society. Scholar Jerome Pollitt divides these into “the Catonian attitude and the

Connoisseur’s attitude” in describing how the Romans engaged with a foreign culture in their midst. It may seem surprising, but Romans did not use religion to dictate their morality but instead, primarily utilized philosophy and orators to guide them through life.

Ancient Romans had portrayed themselves as an idealistic militarized society that was based on the farmer –soldier that lived a life of moderation and frugality. The reality was much different and the elite class lived very extravagant lives full of luxury and vice. For some, uncomfortable with the way Roman society was evolving, Hellenism was targeted as the source of society’s woes. Hellenistic philosophy, particularly Epicureanism was connected to art collecting and a life that shunned politics. Hellenistic art was a source of

21 acrimony for some within the ruling class and it was debated whether it should be for public display, private collections, or both. Scholar Jerome Pollitt beautifully summarizes this problem,

Once this astonishingly rich collection of Greek masterpieces became Art of their urban scene, the Romans were never able simply to ignore it. They were driven to clarify their own relation to it, and in the process of doing so, they devoted a considerable amount of energy to denouncing it, praising it, evaluating it and trying to figure out a proper role for it, and finally to using it for their own purposes.4

Cato the Elder, the main opponent to Hellenism, wanted citizens to live by the Roman values, such as severitas and frugalitas and adhere to the old way of life of being a farmer soldier. “Mark my words,” Cato argued, “they are dangers, believe me, those statues which have been brought into the city from Syracuse, for now I hear far too many people praising and marveling at the ornaments of Corinth and Athens and laughing at the terracotta antefixes of our Roman gods.”5 The art was symptomatic of a society that was changing due to an increase in wealth and power that were coupled with a flow of new

Hellenistic ideas. The art was just a physical manifestation of all of these factors. The ferocity of this debate ebbed and flowed, but the debate itself suggests that Hellenistic art was contributing to social and intellectual change.

The display of wealth and Hellenistic art almost became a necessary tool of the

Roman ruling class, yet there were risks if one was too conspicuous. Advertising one’s wealth could give you political clout, but it could draw dangerous attention to one’s self.

There was a fine line between having enough wealth to retain one’s position in society and becoming a threat in the eyes of the senate. As the concentration of wealth continued

4 Pollitt, 158. 5 Pollitt, 159.

22 unabated, individuals became unbelievably wealthy and powerful. An ideal example of this is Scipio Africanus. He had the support of his army and the public as well as being incredibly wealthy. His philhellenism was used against him as a criticism by his opponents. It was not so much that he admired the Greeks, but that he was so conspicuous about it, and his philhellenism was unrestrained. Livy wrote, “He is not behaving in a manner befitting a Roman commander on duty.”6 In reality these attacks on Scipio’s character were just a ruse to prevent him from gaining more power. His attackers even went as far to criticize his dress claiming that, “he was said to stroll around the gymnasium in a Greek mantle (pallium) and sandals.”7 As a result of these attacks, and also being accused of bribery, Scipio would retire from politics. This example is illustrative of the serious political consequences for being seen as too powerful and too friendly to Hellenism. Nevertheless, the Roman elite would continue to model themselves after the Greeks from the clothes they wore to the material culture with which they surrounded themselves, and all contributed to their Roman intellectual identity.

Hellenistic art was used to display power, wealth and identity by the Roman ruling class and in doing so it elevated them above their peers. Yet to say that Romans collected art just for social status would be far too one-dimensional and the motivation behind why they became such ardent collectors is far more complicated. The motivation to create a new identity to link themselves to the ancient past, and to bolster their military and political legitimacy in both the private and public realms were all factors as to why the Romans became art collectors. The Romans had a predilection to link themselves with the Hellenistic ancient past. The origin stories of Rome are of Aeneas, the Trojan

6 Matthew Dillon and Lynda Garland, Ancient Rome, (London and New York: Routledge, 2015), 243-244. 7 Dillon and Garland, 243-244.

23 hero, and by collecting Hellenistic art this further cemented the link between the

Hellenistic world and Rome. The material culture that they surrounded themselves with, both publicly and privately, became a symbols of their identity.

Roman identity was very much based on war and the military. Triumphs had at first just displayed weapons, prisoners of war, and possibly some cattle, but as the

Hellenistic kingdoms fell to Rome triumphs took on a new significance. The senate approved triumphs served a very specific purpose in Roman society, which was to display to the people of Rome the power, wealth, and legitimacy of the state. Polybius wrote that, “the procession they call triumphs, in which the generals bring the actual spectacles of their achievements before the eyes of their fellow citizens.”8 The statues and paintings were paraded through Rome in the same way that the prisoners of war were, and this had a significant impact on the psyche of the Roman people. Ancient Roman writers Plutarch and Florus both point to specific triumphal processions for the conquests of Syracuse and Tarentum, as when Roman culture changed due to Hellenistic art and luxuries.9 The attempt to understand how their society was evolving indicates that there was a problem with reconciling the traditional way of life and the influence of Hellenism.

Even though the “Catonian” debate continued, it is clear that the triumphs were a source of Hellenistic art for the ruling class and for public monuments. Thousands of statues were bought back from the newly conquered lands. Plutarch wrote that the triumph of

Aemelius Paullus in 168 BCE after the victory over Pydna that, “Three days were devoted to celebrating the triumph, the first of which was barely long enough to exhibit

8 Polybius, Polybius the Histories, Vol III, 6, 15, 8, (Loeb Classical Library, 1922-1927), 305, Accessed November 17, 2017 http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/e/roman/texts/polybius/6*.html. 9 Mary Beard, The Roman Triumph, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007), Accessed November 20, 2017. ProQuest Ebook Central, 147-148.

24 all of the captured statues, paintings and colossal figures, which were carried on two hundred and fifty wagons.”10

Over a sixty-five-year period between the looting of Syracuse and the sacking of

Corinth there was a triumph a year, sometimes even two.11 The Roman people could not help but be influenced by Hellenism as it was physically all around them, yet not all saw this impact as being positive. The same Romans who were against the influence of

Hellenism, were equally uncomfortable with Roman generals parading Greek gods through the streets of Rome. Plutarch states that, during the conquest of Tarentum that

Fabius Maximus took the valuables of the city, but left the statues in the temples and we are left with the famous quote, “Let us leave the Tarentines these angry gods of theirs!”12

This type of restraint was not to last for long, and this was due to the fact that Greek gods had taken on an even more prominent role of Roman religion than they had in past. As time went by looted Hellenistic art was seen less as foreign and more like Roman cultural heritage and part of their identity.

The public display of Hellenistic art in temples and other public buildings was a way to legitimize rule and military action, and was directly related to the changing

Roman intellectual identity. The Romans became inheritors of the Hellenistic realm and as a consequence became immensely wealthy. The thousands of Hellenistic statues that were brought back to Rome and then dedicated to temples forged a strong connection between Greek mythos and the Roman people. When F. Fulvius Flaccus conquered

Falerii in 264 BCE some two thousand statues were dedicated to the Temple Mater

10 Plutarch, The Rise of Rome, Aemellius Paullus, 32, trans. Ian Scott-Kilvert, Jefery Tatum, Christopher Pelling, (London: Penguin Group, 2013), 576. 11 Pollitt, 155. 12 Plutarch, Marcellus 21, 329.

25

Matuta.13 These were visible monuments that were a display of military power, wealth and Greek culture, that all contributed to the Roman psyche. It was not the intent of the

Roman state to instill Hellenism in the Roman people through the display of art in temples, but it was an unintended outcome of their actions.

Many individuals from the ruling class would donate art to temples, but this was not a philanthropic activity, so the art could be viewed by the public. Donating expensive works of art was certainly a show of wealth and loyalty to Rome. Erin Thompson, wrote that “many who wrote about the Greek art they collected generally steered a careful course between enthusiasm and self-deprecation.” She goes on to use a letter from Pliny the Younger as an example. Pliny wrote about a Corinthian bronze sculpture he has acquired, and he is discussing whether to keep it in his private villa or donate it to a temple. It is a curious and almost humorous text as he seems rather torn to be parting with the piece when he says, “the genuine color is old and of great antiquity. In fact, in every respect it is a work calculated to catch the eye of the connoisseur and to delight the eye of the amateur, and this is what tempted me to purchase it, although I am the merest novice.

But I bought it not to keep at home…the statue seems worthy of the temple, and the gift worthy of the god.” He then continues on for quite some time only to say that the next time someone has room in their luggage he will send it along, or perhaps when he has time he will deliver the piece himself.14 It is apparent that Pliny is trying to not present himself as a Hellenistic art collector, but from this text and his other writings it can be deduced that he was indeed an avid collector. Pliny feels as though he must acknowledge

13 Thompson, 8. 14 Ibid., 12.

26 the art should be in a temple, and not kept in a private villa as a way to mitigate any criticisms from his peers and superiors.

The Roman elite class wanted to show that they were fashionable and educated through the display of Hellenistic art. Having sculpture in your villa would convey this to your guests and Hellenism would be absorbed into your identity, both socially and intellectually. Pollitt states that late in Republican Rome an art market complete with,

“passionate collectors, dealers (some unscrupulous, some reliable), smugglers, forgers, restorers, appraisers, fads and fashions and inflated prices.”15 This is illustrative of just how high the demand for art was in Rome and really what it meant to the elite class.

While the art was at first solely from the Hellenistic world the demand soon outpaced the supply, and consequently the Romans were soon manufacturing copies of Hellenistic art.

Workshops, some with Greek artists, were set up and bronze and marble statues were soon being sold to eager collectors.

For many collectors it did not seem to matter if it was a Roman copy of a Greek masterpiece or an original; it was more about in what context the statue would be used.

Questions regarding if the type of statue and subject matter were appropriate for the setting were paramount. For example, should the piece go into the garden, or would it be better in a dining room were important issues. It was details like these that could determine if the collector was hailed as an intellectual hero or admonished for being a poseur. For some collectors at the extreme end of the spectrum of connoisseurship and wealth, copies were not acceptable and an example of one such individual was Cicero. He was not content with Roman copies, and used his friend Atticus as an agent in Athens

15 Pollitt, 162.

27 who acquired Hellenistic art and shipped the pieces back to Cicero’s villas.16 Most collectors were in the middle of the range of collectorship, and what appeared to be most relevant to the majority was subject matter and not the origin of the art work.

Beyond the superficial reasons to display art privately, such as power, wealth, and fashion there were more thoughtful motivations as to why Romans acquired art for their private collections. It was one of connoisseurship, connecting themselves to the revered ancient Hellenistic world, and the belief that the art held a deeper meaning for them.

The Romans use of Hellenistic art continued to evolve, and the motivation behind their collecting varied depending upon the needs of the individual. The intellectual status of some collectors was questioned by their peers, which is not unexpected given the extremely competitive nature of Roman society. Within the sphere of collectors there was a stratification of legitimacy, from those who were just collecting for social status to serious collectors who felt like guardians of the art. While there is not documentation of a

Roman admitting to just collecting for status, it seems more to be an tool that was used to degrade political and social rivals. It was these two extremes that seem to have gotten the most notice from the ancient Roman writers.

The issue of collecting just for social status was a noteworthy problem within Roman society. In a social atmosphere that was dependent on status and reputation any excuse to disparage an individual would be utilized. Pliny the Younger complains some collectors

“simply pretend to have real knowledge about this bronze so that they may set themselves off from the common run of men, and that less often do they really have a subtle

16 Cicero, 1-3, 9.

28 understanding of the subject.”17 This text illustrates how the art was used as a tool to elevate themselves above their peers, but that it was not always successful. The satirist

Juvenal had the same kind of grievance “rich collectors who are not intellectuals, but who live pretentiously and collect possessions simply for the sake of impressing others.”18 It was obvious to some members of the Roman elite who was using art just for social status and who was a true connoisseur. To the poseurs it is the superficial, purely physical interpretation of what they thought collecting Hellenistic art meant, while others were invested intellectually and psychologically to the art.

Given the amount of wealth that was concentrated in Rome there were numerous notable art collectors. There are fragments of ancient texts that tell us about them, such as the prominent Roman Gaius Asinius Pollio, who owned works by famous Greek sculptors like Praxiteles and Skopas. There is Lucullus, who is said to have paid a million sesterces for the statue Fellicitas by Arkesilaos.19 Cicero stands out as a collector, in part because of the treasury of letters detailing his collecting habits. He was a meticulous connoisseur of Hellenistic art and in his correspondence with Atticus he says, “For my appreciation for art treasures is so great, that I am afraid that most people will laugh at me.”20 While Cicero wrote sensitively about his art and villas, he was very judgmental of other collectors. He felt that because he paid for his art that he was superior to other collectors who acquired their art through looting. These ancient texts about Roman collectors give insight into art collecting and identity, and scholars are able to see the similarities in ancient art collectors through history.

17 Pollitt, 160. 18 Mattusch, 2005, 5. 19 Pollitt, 162. 20 Cicero, 8, 21.

29

Rediscovering the Ancients

For centuries from the Age of Enlightenment and the Age of Discovery through the Scientific Revolution and into the Victorian Age, Europeans collected ancient art. Just as the Romans had collected Hellenistic art to create a direct link to the ancient Greeks,

Europeans would do the same by collecting ancient Greco-Roman art. European imperialism and colonial expansion both contributed to the accessibility of art through political and economic dominance. European governments funded what can be seen as scientific research by some and or as state-sanction looting by critics of imperialism.

Countries like France, Germany, and Britain were not just competing for colonies, but also for archeological sites and artifacts. For this thesis the focus will be on the British

Empire. In addition, there are a few terms that are in need of definitions and clarifications, such as intellectual identity and social status.

Social status and intellectual identity in the British Empire between the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries will be defined within the historical context of the age. When discussing social status and art collectors the context is that of the British gentlemen, as this was who was collecting. British society was stratified with very specific demarcations of the social classes. A classical education, and the Grand Tour were prerequisites for aristocratic gentlemen, and collecting ancient art was a mark of rank. The British had very exact ideas about who they were and this was reflected in their intellectual identity. There was no insecurity about their place in the world, they were the dominant force and felt that the British Empire was a continuance of the Roman Empire.

They felt a direct connection with the Greco-Roman world and it was part of who they were. Ownership of ancient art was a physical manifestation of this connection. It was not

30 just the identity of the individual, as many of the great British ancient art collectors held government and military positions; art collecting was part of who they were as rulers of an empire.

The lines between private and state-sanctioned collecting were blurred by individuals using their positions in the government or the court to further their collecting.

Looking back in retrospect, it is easy to judge these early archeologists and collectors of ancient art, but some of the important discoveries about ancient cultures were made as a result, such as the ability to translate Egyptian hieroglyphics and Mesopotamian cuneiform. Even before imperialism and colonialism were factors in collecting, it is difficult to analyze ancient art collectors of this time without taking into account the cultural and political climate in Italy and Greece and how and why ancient art was obtained. Military conquest, imperialism, colonialism, the birth of scientific method, archeology, and the emergence of public museums all influenced ancient art collectors.

The classic example is the case of the taken from Greece by Thomas

Bruce, Lord Elgin, who held the position of Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire from

1799-1804. While Bruce had the approval of the Ottoman authorities to remove some pieces from the Parthenon, it was deemed that he was overzealous in his extractions, and even in British parliament the issue was debated. 21 Nevertheless, the British parliament bought the sculptures from Bruce. The Elgin Marbles became the cornerstone exhibit of the and part of the British identity.

The Scientific Revolution influenced ancient art collectors. The new discoveries made by the explorers seeking out new lands and cultures, while documenting what they

21 Jenkins, 111-114, 120-121.

31 found. There was a desire to acquire physical specimens, from seashells and living animals to plants and fossils. The collectors of natural history specimens would be some of the same men who would also collect ancient art. What for some began as cabinet of curiosities would expand into major collections of ancient art. Men were trying to understand the newly discovered world around them and this was done by physically taking possession of ancient art. In many cases the material culture of foreign peoples was not recognized as art, but as scientific specimens. When the ancient Assyrian sculptures were brought to the British Museum in 1847, it was debated if the pieces were art or just artifacts from an ancient culture.22 These debates reflect on the general attitude of European society during this time. Their feeling of superiority and of being ‘civilized’ and others being ‘un-civilized’ dovetailed with their determination to control the world around them. The British defined and classified art by their standards, which were reflective of an identity that was shaped by ancient Rome and Greece.

While the British felt that that they were the cultural inheritors of the ancient world. They wanted to emphasize the direct link they had to ancient Rome and Greece, and to stress their superiority to other cultures. The English revered the ancient past of

Rome and Greece but felt the present inhabitants were uncivilized savages. This notion of dominance enabled them to take what they pleased from these countries whether it was something as small as a coin or as immense as a temple. Nothing was off limits. The

Nereid Monument that was brought back from Asia Minor by Chares Fellow in the

1840’s is prime example of the arrogance many European men had in regards to ancient art and monuments. The Nereid Monument is a temple 33’ L x 22’ W building that was

22 Jenkins, 117.

32 dismantled and crated up and shipped back directly to the British museum. This was done in cooperation with the local Ottoman government and the British.23 Whether this is right or wrong is up for debate, but what is illustrative of stories like this is the British attitude towards the ancient world. They felt that it was central to their cultural history and their identity. While not every collector was acquiring ancient buildings this demonstrates the sense of ownership, superiority, and entitlement that the English felt towards ancient art.

They argued that they appreciated the culture and artifacts better that the anyone else, and they were caretakers of the ancient past.

The elite British class, as did ancient elite Romans, used their political and military positions to further their acquisition of art. In England, Lord Arundel, Thomas

Howard (1585-1646) is one of the earliest examples of an ancient art collector on a grand scale. He held several positions, such as Lord High Master and acted as a special envoy under King James I and King Charles I. Arundel was from an old aristocratic family whose power had waned, and he was intent on regaining the former glory for his family name. Arundel began collecting early in the seventeenth century, and as his power and wealth increased so did his collection. Arundel utilized his position at court to acquire ancient art when he was sent abroad on government missions in Italy and Asia Minor. He also made use of his social networks with other elite Englishmen to obtain pieces. For instance, Sir Thomas Roe, the ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, was enlisted to acquire pieces for Arundel while he was stationed in Constantinople. Roe and Arundel obtained pieces by any means they saw necessary, whether it was bribery or new excavations. In their letters Roe wrote of the “sordidness of barbarism” of the local

23 , Account of the Ionic Trophy Monument, 18, Accessed January 30, 2018, https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/100237709.

33 authorities and people and that the artifacts and the art was “unesteemed here; and I doubt not, easy to be procured for the charge of digging and fetching.” In another letter he wrote that pieces “may be fetched …secretly; but ask leave they cannot be obtained.” The attitude towards the local people are illustrative of the general belief that the native population was inferior to their own, and with little respect for local authorities Arundel and Roe took what they wanted.24

In the end Arundel amassed a very large ancient art collection, and while the exact numbers are not known, the estimates are thirty-seven large statues, one hundred and twenty-eight busts and a sizable number of sarcophagi and fragments.” King Charles

I and other aristocrats would visit Arundel’s estate and view his collections. Arundel’s collecting influenced the future ancient art collectors, and as time went on it became more and more fashionable to collect Greek and Roman art. Author Erin Thompson states that it was Arundel who would set the precedent for future English collectors. Men like

Arundel helped shape how the English viewed themselves in relation to the ancient world. 25

Elite men from all over Europe were in Italy, Greece, and the Middle East uncovering the ancient past and taking physical possession of the artifacts. In some instances, it was the result of colonialism, or conquest and others by scientific expeditions. In the case of Napoleon, it was all of the above. Napoleon has been called the father of Egyptology and brought with him an army of scientists when he invaded

Egypt. Yet as Napoleon touted scientific discovery he also looted Italy, in particular the

Vatican, of its most prized pieces of art. The French felt justified in the appropriation of

24 Thompson, 29-30. 25 Ibid., 33-35.

34 art and in the following speech given during Napoleon’s triumphal return to France they defend their actions,

The Romans plundered the Etruscans, the Greeks and the Egyptians, accumulated booty in Rome and other Italian cities; the fate of these products of genius is to belong to the people who shine successively on earth by arms and by wisdom, and to follow always the wagons of the victors.26

The art was part of their identity as conquerors, and it was less important how it was obtained. Much of the Egyptian collection at the is a result of Napoleon’s campaign and it was his army that discovered the , while in Egypt. The

French would ultimately lose possession of the Stone to the British when they lost the war. The piece would eventually make its way to the British Museum where it still resides today. This was a time when appropriating art through conquest was still acceptable, but there were limitations, much of the art was returned to the Vatican after

Napoleon’s defeat.

When archeology and art history were becoming disciplines in their own right treasure hunting and science were at times still undistinguishable. For some there was an awareness of the scientific value of artifacts, and men like German art historian Johann

Joachim Winckelmann (1717-1768) was very vocal about how ancient sites and artifacts were treated.27 He was the first to classify ancient art and to catalog art chronologically.

He applied empirical methodology to art and archeology in a time when the majority of men were acquiring ancient art by rather dubious methods.28 Winkelmann was critical of the amount of ancient art that was being exported to England. He sardonically wrote,

26 Jenkins, 132. 27 Mattusch, 40. 28 Jenkins, 87-89.

35

“perhaps it will occur to some mad Englishman to have even Trajan’s column transported to London.”29 Winkelmann criticized many around him, but he was a supporter of Karl

Weber (1712-1764), a Swiss engineer, who was in charge of excavations at Herculaneum and Pompeii. Weber worked for Charles the III of Naples, the Bourbon King who was primarily focused not on the scientific aspect of the ancient sites, but on acquiring pieces for his private museum. Weber was scorned by just about everyone around him, but

Winkelmann recognized the value in Weber’s work and wrote,

It is to his good sense, that we are indebted for all of the good Steps since taken to bring to light this treasure of antiquities. The first thing he did was, to make an exact map of all the subterraneous galleries, and the buildings they led to. This map he rendered still more intelligible, by minute historical account of the whole discovery.30

Weber painstakingly documented where each statue was found at the villa and drew detailed plans of the site that are still used today, but he was constantly at odds with his superiors during his excavations of the Villa dei Papiri. It would be his scientific approach to his work that would ultimately led to his dismissal. Karl Weber and his work on the Villa dei Papiri will be discussed further in this paper, but he is illustrative of the different approaches men took in regards to ancient art. There was a struggle between those who were creating scientific method and applying them to the sites and those who just wanted the artifacts.

It is difficult to talk about private ancient art collectors in Britain without mentioning the British Museum. The museum played a vital role in the appropriation of ancient art in Britain, both in the public and private realm. Private collectors would often

29 Thompson, 36. 30 Mattusch, 41.

36 donate, loan, or sell ancient art the British Museum. This is reminiscent of the Roman practice of donating to temples or other public buildings, and then keeping some pieces for their own private collections. It was also common for collectors to bequeath their collections to the museum when they died. It was a mutually beneficial relationship between ancient art collectors and the British Museum. The collectors received social prestige and legitimacy, and the museum received pieces of ancient art. Charles Townley

(1737-1810), is an example of the close relationship between the museum, the government, and private collectors. Townley went on several Grand Tours to Italy and had an extensive collection of ancient art. He was also a trustee for the British Museum and upon his death by an act of parliament Townley’s collection was purchased by the state and housed in the museum.31 Through the display and promotion of ancient art the

British Museum helped shaped the intellectual identity of the British people.

The Grand Tour became a rite of passage for young elite men in Europe. It was used as an instrument to frame their intellectual identity and was a symbol of their place in society. For this discussion I will mainly focus on Britain, in part because it would from these British collections that J.Paul Getty would later acquire pieces for his own collection. Writer Anthony Burgess wrote, “no reasonable man of Anglo-Saxon or

Germanic stock has ever been wholly satisfied with his own civilization.” He goes on to state that “no man could be considered cultivated if he had not gone out to engage the art, philosophy, and manners of the Latin countries.”32 The Grand Tour evolved from a select few men of wealth taking trips to Italy in search of ancient monuments, art, and culture to

31 Jenkins, 86. 32 Anthony Burgess, Francis Haskell, The Age of the Grand Tour, (London, Paul Elek Productions, 1967), 13.

37 almost a requirement for British men who wanted to enter politics. As the British military conquest continued and anti-Catholic sentiment eased the British felt more comfortable traveling to Italy and Greece. In their travels they brought together the physical artifacts of the ancient world with the Greek and Roman texts from their classical education to form a more complete picture of the past. It can’t be emphasized enough to say that “the models for English art and literature were classical.”33 Lord Chesterfield gave his son this advice in 1749 that “view the most curious remains of antiquity with a classical spirit and it will clear up to you many passages of the classical authors.”34 British culture became immersed in Greco-Roman culture. Architecture, art, fashion, all types of material culture from furniture to porcelain, not to mention the influence on forms of government and philosophy.

The travelers who went on the Grand Tour were not satisfied to just look at the ancient art. They wanted to possess it and bring it back to Britain to display in their homes and gardens. The ancient art was representative of their intellectual identity and social status. Art dealers in Italy catered to the tourists on the Grand Tour. Times had changed for ancient art collectors one no longer had to send agents to faraway lands in order to acquire pieces. There were now British dealers in Italy who catered to the people on the Grand Tour. During the second half of the eighteenth century there were four

Englishmen, Thomas Jenkins, Colin Morison, Gavin Hamilton, and Robert Flagen who dealt in antiquities. Not only did they acquire art from existing Italian collections they sponsored over eighty excavations. These dealers sold to such illustrious collectors as

Charles Townley. There was no intent of scientific or archeological research on these

33 Burgess and Haskell, 13. 34 Thompson, 37.

38 digs, it was purely for the retrieval of artifacts to be sold. Thompson says that, “Those who purchased antiquities, either on or after the Grand Tour, also did so with the goal of reinforcing their spiritual identification with Rome.”35 Traveling to Italy, reading ancient texts and collecting ancient art all became part of the identity of the British, it was part of what it meant to be a gentleman.

The influence of Greece and Rome on the intellectual identity of the British was at its apex in the Society Dilettanti, which was formed in 1734. While it has been said that it was a hedonistic gentlemen’s drinking club, and in the beginning the only real requirement was to have traveled to Italy.36 Yet it evolved into a serious group of men whose mission was to promote Roman and Greek art in England. Author Laura C. Mayer wrote that that “the Society clearly defines its members first and foremost as ‘gentlemen’, a network of privileged virtuosi who combine social interaction with a serious desire to promote the arts.”37 Members included aristocrats like Sir Joseph Banks and Sir William

Hamilton. Some of the most well-known collectors of the time such as Charles Townley and Richard Payne Knight were members. Many of these men held overlapping positions in government, institutions and clubs and their sphere of influence was extensive. For instance, Sir Hamilton was the British ambassador to the Kingdom of Naples and an avid collector of ancient art. This was a group of men that was consciously setting the parameters of what should be considered art and what should be included in one’s intellectual identity. Painter Sir Joshua Reynolds and architect William Wilkins were

35 Thompson, 36-37. 36 “Grecian Taste and Roman Spirit: The Society of Dilettanti”, accessed January 16, 2018, http://www.getty.edu/art/exhibitions/dilettanti/. 37 Ileana Baird, Social Networks in the Long Eighteenth Century: Clubs, Literary Salons, Textual Coteries (1). (Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2014), 203.

39 members and through their art they would influence the material culture of England.

Their motto was “Grecian taste and Roman spirit”38 They funded archeological excavations and influenced the culture and intellect of England in a very organized manner. This was not just a men’s club that promoted ancient art, but it also an incubator of elite social networks. Sharing contacts and selling art to each other, formed long lasting and very beneficial social relationships. Members of the Society Dilettanti were some of the most successful ancient art collectors in England. Their collections would become world famous and very sought after by future collectors. Numerous pieces that had formerly been owned by Dilettanti members would be dispersed into the collections of great American collectors such as would be bought by William Randolph Hearst and J.

Paul Getty.39

British society and culture became so immersed in the ancient past that it influenced most areas of culture from art and architecture to science and political systems. Museums, scientific discovery, military conquest, colonialism, imperialism all contributed to how ancient art was collected. Some of the great pieces and collections of ancient art were acquired during eighteenth and nineteenth century. With the assistance of groups like the Society Dilettanti who were “widely responsible for launching the

Neoclassical trend through their sponsored archeological expeditions, the Dilettanti also played a significant part in the dissemination of a culture of curiosity”.40 They embodied the drive to discover and collect the ancient world around them and their actions and

38 Baird,199. 39 “Grecian Taste and Roman Spirit: The Society of Dilettanti”, accessed March 5, 2018. http://www.getty.edu/art/exhibitions/dilettanti/. 40 Ibid., 219.

40 philosophies would lay the foundations for the ancient art collectors of the twentieth century.

All Great Men Want Their Place in History

After centuries of the European elite revering and collecting ancient art for social status and intellectual identity, this tradition carried on into the twentieth century.

However, now it was Americans who craved the social prestige and legitimacy that came from collecting art. Elite Americans flocked to Europe for their own version of the Grand

Tour where they purchased art and furniture that was brought back to the States. For most travelers, these souvenirs were trinkets, such as copies of old world masters or small pieces of porcelain. Others would become part of the long line of ancient art collectors.

The elite American class was flush with money, but not necessarily the knowledge or social connections to acquire high quality art. Collecting ancient art had always been a gentleman’s pursuit. A very select group ultra-wealthy American men continued this tradition, J.P. Morgan, Henry Walters, Charles Edwin Wilbour, Theodore M. Davis and

W.R. Hearst all spent great sums of money on acquiring ancient art and with it came the social status and intellectual identity they craved, if not demanded.41

The pursuit for social status for wealthy Americans had to do with a sense of insecurity about their place relative to Europeans social elites. For Americans, social status was defined as not just their place in American society, but how they were viewed by their European peers. One’s standing in society was something that could be shaped and could be elevated through activities such as philanthropy and art collecting. Being an

41 Ancient art in American Private Collections, The Fogg Art Museum of Harvard University, December 28, 1954-February 15, 1955, access February, 18, 2018. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015010978628;view=1up;seq=1.

41 art collector had benefits that were two-fold. Acquiring ancient art exposed wealthy

Americans to social circles that include the aristocracy, art dealers, museum curators, scholars that enabled them to elevate their social standing. Yet, some American collectors also embraced collecting as an academic pursuit that underpinned their intellectual identities.

There were key individuals, art dealers and art historians, who would help facilitate building collections and would forge relationships with the newly wealthy

Americans. Collecting art is an extremely specialized, costly, and risky venture. There is a certain level of trust and comradery that develops between the collector and the dealer.

The collectors, art dealers and scholars all play a part is shaping culture and intellectual identity of society. For example, the Harvard-educated art historian Bernard Berenson

(1865-1959) helped to build some of the most famous American Art collections of his time. He was responsible for guiding Isabella Stuart Gardner in her acquisition of

Renaissance art.42 Inexperienced collectors depended on the advice of scholars and art dealers to build their collections. Berenson was a collector himself and his own personal tastes in art influenced what type of art he promoted to his clients, which in turn shaped what kind of art the public was exposed to. Berenson said, “It would take a Balzac to describe the power and glory of gifted dealers and their influence for good and for evil over the public.”43 Berenson and the infamous art dealer Lord Duveen worked together for decades shaping the great American art collections and are arguably the two most dominant figures of the early twentieth century art world.

42 Karl E. Meyer, The Plundered Past, (New York, Athenaeum, 1973), 123. 43 Ibid., 124.

42

English Lord Joseph Duveen (1869-1939) was a second-generation art dealer, who had the knowledge, influence, and social networks to purchase and sell high-end fine art. Through his social connections he also had the ability to elevate the social position of his clients. He not only influenced what art was purchased, but also how the public viewed art through his own philanthropy. Duveen’s sphere of influence extended beyond his rich cliental to the great institutions of England, such as the British Museum. He donated funds to build a new wing to house the Elgin Marbles, but with the conditions that the marbles be displayed to his taste. It is said that Duveen was responsible for the

Elgin Marbles being scrubbed with wired brushes in 1930.44 Duveen’s actions permanently changed how the Elgin Marbles are seen, gleaming white and smooth is how the public expects Greek marble sculpture to look. That reality is a European construct that has been created to suit their own aesthetic desires. This is illustrative of the kind of influence people like Duveen had. The power to determine what was valuable, what was art and how it should be viewed. The influence over how art is seen in the world shapes our cultural identity and how we view ourselves in relation to it.

Without a doubt the Lord Duveen played a critical role in wealthy Americans obtaining fine art, and it was a relationship made in art dealer heaven. Duveen biographer

S.N. Behrman wrote that Duveen’s success was based on the fact that “Europe had plenty of art and America had plenty of money.”45 The elite class of Americans desperately wanted to be seen as social equals to elite Europeans, and collecting fine art was used to gain social status and legitimacy. Duveen was described as “the suave and subtle master dealer who provided some of America’s richest men with the most expensive art

44 Jenkins, 111. 45 Meryle Seacrest, Duveen: A Life in Art, (New York, Alfred A. Knopf, 2004), 43.

43 educations in history.”46 Some of his clients included J.P. Morgan, John D. Rockefeller,

Henry E. Huntington, Henry Clay Frick and William Randolph Hearst. Author Aline B.

Saarinen wrote that, “Many of the magnates were simply acquiring props for their personal stage-sets. Many of them collected art as a symbol of the prestige to which they believed their power entitled them. Their quest was not for culture, but for the tangible possession of culture.”47 Whether it was just a façade or if they truly appreciated the art, the elite class of Americans wanted to be seen as cultured art collectors. Duveen influenced not just what these men collected, but guided their philanthropy. Duveen encouraged his clients to donate to museums, which added to their social prestige, and to

Duveens. American collectors in many cases depended on the advice and judgement of art dealers and scholars to guide their acquisition of art.

One prominent collector that rarely consulted art dealers or scholars and did his own research was William Randolph Hearst. Lord Duveen called him an “accumulator”, and it is estimated that within in his lifetime that Hearst spent a minimum of a million dollars a year for fifty years on art.48 There were multiple warehouses full of art that

Hearst had bought, more than any one man could use or display in one lifetime. By most accounts art was an all-encompassing obsession with Hearst, even taking precedence over business meetings.49 Hearst was a collector that purchased a wide variety of pieces from tapestries to medieval buildings. He also had a very large ancient Greek and Roman collection. The vast collection spanned from red and black vases and jewelry to bronze

46 John Tebbel, The Life and Good Times of William Randolph Hearst, (New York, E.P. Dutton & Co., Inc, 1952), 273. 47 Aline B. Saarinen, The Proud Possessors, (New York, Random House, 1958), 58-59. 48 Victoria Kastner, “William Randolph Hearst: Maverick Collector”, Journal of The History of Collections 27, no. 3 (2015): 413-24. accessed on February 18, 2018, https://academic-oup-com.sonoma.idm.oclc.org/jhc/article/27/3/413/2451568. 49 Tebbel, 269.

44 and marble statuary. Most collectors have a few categories that they collect from, but

Hearst was a unique collector in the fact that he bought everything. His mother, Phoebe

Hearst, commented on their first trip to Europe in 1873 that she had to tell her son, “that we could not buy all that we saw.”50 Hearst started collecting as a young boy and was very knowledgeable, one friend said, “he knew too much to be fooled.”51 Most of what he bought was high quality art and artifacts from reputable dealers and auction houses.

Hearst bought from the same art dealers, such as Duveen and French and Co. that J.P.

Getty purchased art from. Both men also bought pieces from English aristocratic art collections, such as the Lansdowne estate. Hearst acquired several extraordinary pieces such as the Lansdowne Artemis and the Lansdowne Athlete among others and Getty acquired the Lansdowne Herakles, as well as other pieces.52

If Hearst had been able to control his insatiable need to spend money, he might have been remembered more for his philanthropy instead of the fact that he lost his fortune. Hearst had planned to establish a medieval museum, but it never came to fruition.53 While Hearst did not found a museum in his lifetime he gave regularly to the

Los Angeles County Museum (LACMA) and he is actually the “greatest individual donor to the Los Angeles County Museum.”54 There are over 552 pieces in the LACMA catalog that came from William Randolph Hearst Collection. In the 1940’s through the time of his death Hearst donated many pieces of Greek and Roman art, comprising a large

50 Kaster, 413. 51 Tebbel, 268. 52 Los Angeles County Museum of Art, “Greek, Roman, and Etruscan Art”, accessed March 5, 2018, http://www.lacma.org/art/collection/greek-roman-and-etruscan-art. 53 Kastner, 424. 54 Los Angeles County Museum of Art, “Hearst the Collector”, accessed March 5, 2018, http://www.lacma.org/art/exhibition/hearst-collector.

45 portion of the LACMA’s current collection.55 Hearst was cognizant of what art meant to the public and what impact his collecting would have on future generations when he said,

“The enjoyment I have obtained is not so important as the enjoyment others might obtain from (my collection). I think it is important to have art objects…brought to the country.

They find their way to museums eventually, and not everyone can go abroad.”56 This statement is applicable to so many of the great collectors, it is the French term noblesse oblige, the sense of duty to the less fortunate and is part of the motivation to share their art with the public, whether out of altruism or social status.

In the three hundred years since the British collected ancient Greco-Roman antiquities, art collectors in the twentieth century had remarkably similar motivations and social relationships. Specifically, the affiliation between the collectors and museums would be a vital component to how art was acquired and publicly displayed. With the advent of strict export laws and the major museums competing for pieces with private collectors the number of large private ancient art collections is limited. In the mid- twentieth century there was a group of collectors based in New York, that became well known for their collections and their philanthropy. The informal group was comprised of

Norbert Schimmel, Leon and Harriet Pomerance, Christos Bastis, Walter C, Baker, and

Alastair Bradley Martin of the famed Guennol collection to name a few. These affluent collectors worked with curators and scholars like John Coolidge and John D. (Jack)

Cooney to collect, preserve, educate and display ancient art. Institutions like the

Metropolitan Museum, the Brooklyn Museum and the Archeological Institute America

55 Los Angeles County Museum of Art, “Greek, Roman, and Etruscan Art”, accessed March 6, 2018, http://www.lacma.org/art/collection/greek-roman-and-etruscan-art. 56 Kastner, 424.

46 were utilized for exhibits and guidance. Author Erin Thompson wrote, “The collector who establishes a close relationship with a museum gains large benefits in terms of an expanded and strengthened social network.”57 This is precisely what came of the relationship these collectors had with the curators at the Met and Brooklyn Museum.

They were a tight group of friends who were also collectors that supported each other in their ancient art endeavors.

Norbert Schimmel (1904-1989) is an example of a collector that started acquiring ancient art in the 1940’s. His close friend, Jack Cooney was at the time the curator of

Egyptian art at the Brooklyn Museum. Schimmel’s neighbors were Leon and Harriet

Pomerance and it was this combination that contributed to Schimmel’s interest in the ancient Mediterranean. In less than two decades Schimmel had created one of the finest collections of ancient art in America and in 1959 he lent several of his pieces for the

“Ancient Art from New York Private Collections” that was held at the Metropolitan

Museum in New York. Five short years later in 1964 his pieces were shown at the Fogg

Art Museum at Harvard in an exhibit entitled “The Beauty of Ancient Art.58 Schimmel continued to collect up until the 1970’s, and upon his death he left 102 pieces to the

Metropolitan Museum. Schimmel had been a trustee of the museum, and just like the

British gentlemen from centuries past he used his social position to further his collecting of ancient art.

57 Thompson, 136. 58 The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin, Spring 1992, 5, file:///Users/Damnatiomemoriae/Downloads/Ancient_Art_The_Metropolitan_Museum_of_Art_Bulletin_v _49_no_4_Spring_1992.pdf.

47

Through collecting art, the elite Americans sought to elevate their social positons, but it was much more complex than a status symbol. Art critic Aline B. Saarinen wrote in her book The Proud Possessors that Nelson Rockefeller “castigates America for allowing itself to be considered the only uncultured country in the world.”59 Much like the ancient Romans who sought legitimacy and identity by collecting Hellenistic art,

Americans sought their place in the world by collecting art. The British from the eighteenth century were cognizant of their identity and went about the world claiming their ancient possessions. The evolution from private collectors to public benefactors- whether it is the ancient Romans donating pieces to temples or English gentleman or the wealthy Americans donating, loaning, and bestowing pieces to museums- gave a level a social legitimacy and prestige. For the extremely wealthy collectors that are in a class unto themselves making their art collections public was a common practice, and for some would culminate if the founding of their own museums.

59 Saarinen, 394.

48

CHAPTER TWO

Getty the Collector

The twentieth century saw the rise of the great American art collectors. As discussed previously there are many reasons why one collects art, such as social status, legitimacy, and power. Deeper psychological motives also dictate why collectors acquire antiquities. Feelings of being connected to past greatness through ancient art have played a role in why it has been collected for over two thousand years. Ancient art collectors link themselves to the cultures of Rome and Greece through possessing their art. One twentieth century collector that felt a real affinity to the ancient world was Jean Paul

Getty (1892-1976).

The Early Years

From an early age Getty had a fascination with the and Rome, and as a child and young adult he traveled to the Mediterranean with his parents. Getty was born into a wealthy family, his father, George F. Getty, was a lawyer and then went into the oil business. His father was very successful and in 1905 he moved his family from

Minnesota to California where they would eventually settle in Los Angeles.1 J.P. Getty lived a privileged existence and was loved by his parents, who gave him every opportunity in life. After Getty graduated from high school, he traveled to Europe in 1909 with his mother, Sarah, and father. They started in England and traveled to France,

Holland, Germany, and Switzerland.2 Upon returning to America Getty started college at the University of California at Berkeley, but it was not a good fit for him. He was convinced that what he needed was to go to school in England, and in 1912 Getty

1 Getty, As I See It, 20-24. 2 Ibid., 54-55.

49 enrolled at Oxford University.3 It was also in 1912 that Getty would visit the ancient city of Herculaneum for the first time.4 In 1913 Getty graduated from Oxford with an

Economics and Political Science degree, and he also had received the classic gentlemen’s education that emphasized the ancient classic texts of Rome and Greece.5 Although Getty did not become truly interested in art until he was in his thirties, while at Oxford he visited museums and wrote that “I was a good, almost a model Cook’s tourist. I faithfully made the rounds of the museums and galleries. Even so, my love of fine art still seemed dormant.”6 Based on this quote it seems that Getty was acting as any respectable upper class gentlemen should, and that his sincere appreciation for art was yet to come. After his graduation Getty went on an astonishing tour of Europe traveling from England to

Germany, Scandinavia, Russia, the Balkans and down into Greece and eventually on to

Egypt, all the while dining with aristocrats and the social elite. Within the Getty Family

Papers archive there is a souvenir print album entitle “Views from Athens” inscribed, “To

Mother From Paul” this booklet is from the 1913 trip. It must have been a sentimental piece for his mother and then for J.P. Getty to have kept for all those years, and shows the love for his mother and his passion for the ancient world.7

It is important to examine this early part of Getty’s life, because as like with most people these early adult years were formative in shaping who he was as an adult. The relationships and social connections he made as a young man influenced who he was later in life. To put it into perspective, Getty was now a member of an elite social class that

3 Getty, As I See It, 58-59. 4 Getty Publications, Guide to the Getty Villa, 15. 5 Getty, As I See It, 60-65. 6 Getty, The Joys of Collecting, 10. 7 Getty Special Collections, Getty Family Papers, Box 2010.IA.17-03.

50 was in part due to his wealth, and now his education. Getty had gone to Oxford with a letter of introduction from President Taft who was a friend of Getty’s father.8 Getty became friends with the Prince of Wales whom he had met at Oxford, and they would continue their friendship for decades to come. While Getty was in Russia in 1913 his traveling companion was a Russian prince. Getty always liked to say that his fortune was much smaller than other wealthy elites, which is a bit inexplicable because he socialized with Presidents, royalty, and the richest people in the world from a very young age. It could be a bit of insecurity at being a nouveau riche American, and not having a noble pedigree to go with his wealth. Nevertheless, these social connections would not just benefit his business in the years to come, but would also assist him in acquiring ancient art.

While in high school and college, J.P. Getty had been working summers in his father’s oil fields, but after he graduated from Oxford, he wanted to become a diplomat, instead of going into the oil business. Getty, an only child, was now twenty-one, and his father wanted him to follow in the family business. The oil boom in Oklahoma and

California was in full swing and George Getty convinced his son to take a year and try to make a go at the oil business. J.P. Getty agreed, and was given a hundred dollars per month for living expenses, and his father would provide the capital for the land and drilling expenses. If the oil wells hit the profits would be split thirty percent to J.P. and seventy percent for George. J.P. Getty was extremely successful, and in 1916 within just two years of being in the oil business he was a millionaire. Getty did the unexpected, and at the age of twenty-three retired and stopped working.9 Getty loved the good life, but

8 Getty, As I See It, 61. 9 Ibid., 25-30.

51 there was a dichotomy about his personality. Later in life he would become a dedicated

Anglophile, but there was part of him that was very American, and he had a lot of affection for Los Angeles. He felt it was his home. When he went back to Los Angeles he lived the life of a playboy for the next three years. In Getty’s own words of this time he said, “I literally did nothing but have a good time.” He goes on to write that “Even in those days, there were excellent restaurants, supper- and nightclubs. The social atmosphere was casual, relaxed, friendly. And above all, Southern California, then as later, abounded with exceedingly attractive-and largely unattached-young women.”10 Yet for all of the glorious distractions Los Angeles could offer, the pull of oil would lure

Getty back, and in 1919 he un-retired. California was gushing with oil, all around Getty he saw other men making vast fortunes off of the fields in Southern California and it was too much for him to ignore. Getty would continue to live in Los Angeles and to make millions of dollars in oil.

Whether Getty had any inclinations to still be a diplomat he does not say, but in

1930 George Getty died from a stroke and Getty wrote, “my father told me that he had built what he hoped would be a family business and reminded me that I was his only child. I was thirty-seven when he died-and no longer had any freedom of choice over what I would do with the rest of my life.”11 If Getty had any aspirations to leave the oil business, he put it all aside once his father died. In his journal from May 31, 1953, over two decades later he wrote, “Papa darling, twenty-two years today and yet I think of you so often and realize, as always how much I love you and mama.”12 There was certainly a

10 Getty, As I See It, 32-33. 11 Ibid., 38-39. 12J.P. Getty Journal May, 31, 1953, Getty Foundation, Digital Collections, accessed March 7, 2018, http://rosettaapp.getty.edu:1801/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE282960&change_lng=.

52 sense of duty to carry on the family business, and Getty was extremely successful at what he did. He was a shrewd businessman and had instinct on where to find oil. In 1957

Fortune magazine would proclaim Getty the richest man in the world.13 While this research is not focusing on the minutia of his oil business it must be noted that it was due to Getty’s extreme wealth, power, and social position that enabled him to become one of the great collectors of ancient art of the twentieth century.

Getty Begins to Collect

By all accounts, both scholarly and autobiographical, Getty did not start to collect art in earnest until the 1930’s. Before then a few pieces were purchased here and there, but nothing substantial. Getty wrote that his inspiration for collecting furniture started when he leased an apartment in New York owned by Mrs. Frederick Guest, which was decorated in eighteenth century French and English furniture and objet d’art. It was in this apartment Getty realized that to be what he considered truly refined that the furniture, art, and carpets must all be of the same caliber. He wrote: “I firmly believe that beautiful paintings and sculptures should be on display in surroundings of equal quality.”14 Getty was in Europe in 1938 before the World War II broke out and wrote in his journal repeatedly of the ‘war scare’. Getty did not live in Europe and he did not seem overly concerned about the war when he wrote, “I could sympathize with, but not quite share the feelings of the people who sat around me.”15 Getty continued to travel around Europe with impunity, and to visit museums and art collections.16 Getty was more concerned at

13 Getty, As I See It, 3. 14 Getty, The Joys of Collecting, 62-63. 15 Ibid., 6. 16 J.P. Getty Journal March 24-December 30,1939, Getty Foundation, Digital Collections, accessed March 7, 2018, http://rosettaapp.getty.edu:1801/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE282960&change_lng=.

53 being able to buy high quality works of art and antiques at low prices, than he was with the coming war. Ever the consummate business man, the mantra of ‘buy low and sell high’ was what Getty lived by. Over and over again in his journals he boasts of getting a deal, whether it was real estate, oil fields or art, he was always out for a bargain. Getty took full advantage of the pre-war desperation in Europe and was purchasing large quantities of furniture, silver, paintings, porcelain, tapestry, carpets, and books; everything that a gentlemen would need to furnish a house.17 Getty’s business took him all over Europe, and while in 1945 he would buy property in Malibu, he had started modeling himself after the great English aristocratic collectors.18 There does not seem to be a particular piece of ancient art or any journal entry that documents the decision to start collecting antiquities, but in 1939 he purchased his first sculpture at auction. The piece was a terra-cotta sculpture of a reclining woman, which was actually a nineteenth century fake.19 Getty was not deterred by this first failure, and would go on to educate himself about ancient art and seek the guidance of scholars and professionals.

Getty’s intellect is often over-shadowed by his great success in business and the terrible failures of his personal life. Getty had a classical education, and he spoke

German, English and French and would later teach himself Arabic. Getty was consciously shaping his own identity. One of his wives said that when traveling Getty,

“did not mimic manners and mannerisms. He assumed them.” As Getty’s business increased, he was rarely home in the California and lived out of hotels in Europe where

17 J.P. Getty Journal March 24-December 30,1939, Getty Foundation, Digital Collections, accessed March 7, 2018, http://rosettaapp.getty.edu:1801/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE282960&change_lng=. 18 The J. Paul Getty Museum, Guide to the Getty Villa, 9-11. 19 The J. Paul Getty Museum, Handbook of the Antiquities Collection, xi.

54 he, “purchased and stored different wardrobes in various European capitals so that he would not stand out by wearing, for example, a Spanish made suit in Berlin.”20 Getty was very cognizant of his outward appearance and how he was perceived by his peers. This coincides with how he furnished his homes; he knew his social status and dressed and lived accordingly.

Getty wrote in his book The Joy of Collecting that he had five main areas of collecting, “Greek and Roman marbles and bronzes; Renaissance paintings; sixteenth – century Persian carpets; Savonnerie carpets; eighteenth-century French furniture; and tapestries.”21 He should have added another category, books. Getty by his own admission was a voracious reader and in his journal he wrote that he is usually up until 1 to 2 AM reading books. Going through his personal papers and house inventories the records are evidence of Getty’s appetite for books. He bought hundreds of books and later in life he would by them by the thousands. In 1938 Getty had the capital to really start collecting furniture and art on a grand scale, and books were no exception. For example, between

May and July Getty purchased books from Michael Williams LTD., a purveyor of old books no less than twelve times. Getty bought over one hundred and fifteen books that ranged in age from 1724 to new books from 1938. The subject matter was mostly about art and reference books such as Introduction to English Painting. There were also history books and encyclopedia sets, and many old books on travel, such as the Francis Hall’s

Travels in France from 1819. In the same collection of papers there is a three-page list of books that were shipped to Getty in New York and there are hundreds of books.22 In 1941

20 Thompson, 115-116. 21 Getty, The Joys of Collecting, 15. 22 Getty Special Collections, Getty Family Papers, Box 1986.IA.48-5 5 Folder 10, Michael Williams LTD file.

55

French and Co. bought a book on Persian Carpets for $30.00, which they intended for

Getty. They then sent Getty a letter telling him about the book to see if he wanted it.

Getty’s art dealers knew what kind of collector he was and what his interests were, and they were always on the lookout for art and books for Getty.23 These were not books that were for show. These were the books Getty used in part to educate himself about art.

However, books were not the only way Getty educated himself about art.

When Getty started collecting ancient art, he also began consulting with scholars and art experts. Getty was in Rome in 1939, and he wanted to purchase several pieces of ancient sculpture and . One piece was the marble head of Agrippina the younger from the art dealer Barsanti. Another piece the was marble head of Livia, which was for sale by the noted antiquarian Bilbao Jandola. Getty knew his own limitations and was unsure of the authenticity of these pieces, so he went to the Vatican and asked for a recommendation for a professional specialist. He was given two names, Professor

Ludwig Curtius, director of the Germany Archeological Institute in Rome, and G.E.

Rizzo, a professor at the University of Rome. Curtius introduced Getty to Dr. Hermine

Speier, who then accompanied Getty to view the sculptures.24 Speier confirmed the authenticity, and the pieces were purchased and shipped back to the USA.25 This is just one example of Getty when he employed experts to help him in his purchases. Getty forged relationships with scholars, curators, and art dealers that would last decades, and these people were instrumental in facilitating Getty’s education. Jean Charbonneaux, who was the Keeper of Antiquities at the Louvre, and was good friends with Getty. They had a

23 Getty Special Collections, Getty Family Papers, Box 1986.IA.48-5 5 French and Co file. 24 Getty Special Collections, Getty Family Papers, Box 1986.IA.22-1, Jiri Frel File. 25 Getty Special Collections, Getty Family Papers, Box 1986.IA.48-4, Spinks and Son file.

56 close relationship and Getty sought out his opinion on pieces. Getty would go on to lend his ancient Polycletian bronze sculpture the Phrixos to the Louvre for a few years.26 The relationship between collector, curator, and scholar was mutually beneficial.

Getty did not only employ experts to authenticate pieces, but to educate him on antiquities and the ancient world. Getty wrote, “I have read books on art and art history as well as visiting (and lingering in) museums and art galleries. Yet I did not believe this to be enough. I sought the guidance and expertise of individuals whose education, training and profession made them authoritative instructors and reliable judges.”27 Getty had a plethora of scholars and experts that he consulted, but Ludwig Curtius was a significant influence on Getty. From 1939 until Curtius’s death in 1954 he traveled with Getty to the ancient sites and museums in Italy and Greece. During a stretch from September to

December of 1939 Getty and Curtius visited numerous ancient sites and museums in

Italy, particularly in and around Rome. The ancient sites are too numerous to completely list. Getty visited the Coliseum and Forum repeatedly, then the Temple of Castor, the

Julius Caesar Altar, the Palatine, and the Baths Diocletian. These are just a few of the sites that Getty saw. Sometimes he would stay until dark. These are not the actions of a collector just purchasing art for social status. In a journal entry on September 25, 1939

Getty complains that he had to miss his “usual visit to the forum” because of the rain.28

Getty was equally enthusiastic about going to museums. He was a regular at the National

Museum, the Vatican, the Capitoline, and the Lateran Museum, and Getty continually went back to the same museums, and sometimes stayed until closing. Getty was learning

26 Getty, Joys of Collecting, 29. 27 Getty, As I See It, 266. 28 J.P. Getty Journal September 25, 1938, Getty Foundation, Digital Collections, accessed March 7, 2018, http://rosettaapp.getty.edu:1801/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE282960&change_lng=.

57 all he could about ancient art, and in his journal entry from October 14, 1939 he wrote,

“finished study of contents of Palazzo del Museo at the Capitol. Some very fine works.

The Venus, Wounded Gaul, Centaurs, the of the Doves.”29 From the journal entries it is evident that Getty methodically studied the art in the museums and the sites in

Rome.

In 1953 Getty and Curtius visited museums and ancient monuments, only this time in Greece. They went to the Parthenon along with other temples and sites in Athens, and he wrote in his journal, “Enough of the old city is left to be profoundly moving and impressive. One can feel and understand the glory that was Greece.”30 On May 20 on this same trip, Getty and an unnamed Greek Minister travel to the ancient marble quarry where the marble for the Parthenon came from. In this same journal entry Getty goes on to write about all the different types and qualities of marble. Getty’s interest in minute details of art was never ending. He wanted to know everything about the pieces he bought, and he was known to go to archives himself to do research. In fact, during this trip to Greece, Getty went to the Classical Library at the American School of Classical

Studies and was there until 9 P.M. to conduct research.31 Getty had cultivated relationships with scholars, curators, and other collectors that expanded his knowledge base and his collection. All the while Getty was refining his intellectual identity, and building upon his classical education.

29 J.P. Getty Journal October 14, 1939, Getty Foundation, Digital Collections, accessed March 7, 2018, http://rosettaapp.getty.edu:1801/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE282960&change_lng=. 30 J.P. Getty Journal May 19, 1953, Getty Foundation, Digital Collections, accessed March 7, 2018, http://rosettaapp.getty.edu:1801/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE282960&change_lng=. 31 J.P. Getty Journal May 29, 1953, Getty Foundation, Digital Collections, accessed March 7, 2018, http://rosettaapp.getty.edu:1801/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE282960&change_lng=.

58

When Getty started seriously collecting ancient art he began to forge relationships that expanded his social network and his ability to purchase art. Collecting art was changing Getty’s intellectual identity. He had the classical education, and now that he had the capital and time to collect art. Getty now shaped his outward appearance and his surroundings to match his identity. He used his social connections with people like Leon

Lacroix, an expert on eighteenth century French art, to his benefit. In 1938 Lacroix took

Getty around Paris and London for private viewings of collections that were being sold.

In Getty’s journal from October 8, 1938 he references the collections of Fabre, Kraemers,

Butibol and Memsing. Lacroix then takes him to French and Co., a very reputable art dealer, who Getty would purchase from for decades to come. Getty only wanted to buy the finest pieces that were museum quality. Getty wrote that he was out quality not quantity, even so Getty was buying art and furniture at a furious pace.32 Getty benefitted from his social connections, and was able gain access to collections that the average collector just did not have.

For any beginning art collector, it is a learning process, and it was no different for

Getty. Getty’s early collection was accentuated by the acquisition of some major works of ancient art, and he also unknowingly bought some fakes. He built relationships with dealers and collectors, and assembled a collection. Getty made a conscious decision to start to build his art collection. He wrote that “When I began collecting actively, I determined to keep my collection comparatively small and to purchase items of the highest artistic quality and merit.”33 The scale of his collection did not stay small, his

32 J.P. Getty Journal October 8, 1938, Getty Foundation, Digital Collections, accessed March 7, 2018, http://rosettaapp.getty.edu:1801/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE282960&change_lng=. 33 Getty, Joys of Collecting, 15.

59 journals from 1938 has pages of French furniture that he purchased.34 During the years of

1937-1940 Getty was purchasing art and furniture at such volumes that he often did not take physical possession of the pieces right away. In mid-June 1940 Getty wrote to

French and Co, T. Crowther and Son, and the Duveen Brothers requesting a list of items that were purchased and stored. Looking back at Getty’s early collecting years there were early signs that he was going to be one of the great collectors of our time.

The relationship between Getty and some his art dealers was not just business. He considered them his friends, and he interacted with them socially. One firm that had a close relationship with Getty was French and Co., the founder Mitchel Samuels was a

“great friend and art adviser for twenty-five years.”35 In 1940 French and Co. acted as agents at an auction in New York for Getty and bought his first pieces of ancient glass.

Fourteen pieces of Greco-Roman and Syrian glass, which Getty paid a total of $1955.62 for the ancient art. These pieces would become the basis of his ancient glass collection, and are on exhibit at the Getty Villa today. Getty acquired many pieces of ancient art from Samuels including mosaics and Greek silver. Getty wrote, “Mitchell Samuels, with whom I became close personal friends, proved to be a uniquely talented and able buying agent. Through his efforts, the foundation of my collection was built.”36 Even after

Samuels death in 1959 Getty continued to purchase art from French and Co., and in the early 1970’s pieces were being purchased for Getty Museum.

Getty also had a close relationship with Lord Duveen and knew him quite well.

Duveen sold Getty a large amount of art work, but Duveen can be most remembered as

34 J.P. Getty Journal 1938-1939, Getty Foundation, Digital Collections, accessed March 7, 2018, http://rosettaapp.getty.edu:1801/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE282960&change_lng=. 35 Getty, As I See It, 245. 36 Getty, Joys of Collecting, 65.

60 the man who sold Getty the Ardabil carpet. The Ardabil is a sixteenth century carpet that measures 24 feet by 14 feet and is said to be one of the finest Persian carpet in the world.

Duveen bought the carpet for his own personal collection, and kept it for several years before selling it to Getty in 1938 for a sum of $70,000.00. Getty cites the “war scare” for purchasing the carpet at such a low price, but goes on to say that Duveen “virtually made a gift of the carpet.”37 The relationship between Duveen and Getty exemplifies two men of high social status who had a shared respect for each other, and for art. According to

Getty, Duveen could have sold the Ardabil to any number of collectors for much more money, but didn’t, instead he sold to Getty. It just was not Getty’s social connections that enabled him to acquire such a fabulous collection of art, but his friendships with fellow collectors. Getty had tremendous respect for Duveen and in his journal wrote, “Duveen is very interesting, fine type of man, held in thrall by his conversation.”38 Lord Duveen was exactly the type of person with whom Getty could identify. He was aristocratic, wealthy, influential, an intellectual, and an art collector. Duveen had a long history of helping

American collectors and providing not just art, but legitimacy and social status.

According to Getty’s journals and books, such as As I See It these are the kinds of people

Getty surrounded himself with socially.39

The firm Spink and Son were conduits for the aristocracy to sell their ancient art to Getty. Rudolph Forrer, a Greco-Roman antiquities expert and the manager of the

Antique department at Spink and Son. While the relationship between Getty and Forrer was friendly, Forrer was not sure what to make of Getty. Forrer said, “He’s the most

37 Getty, Joys of Collecting, 60-61. 38 J.P. Getty Journal November 14, 1938, Getty Foundation, Digital Collections, accessed March 7, 2018, http://rosettaapp.getty.edu:1801/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE282960&change_lng=. 39 Getty, As I See It.

61 difficult of all our customers…a queer client: more interested in material than artistic qualities, perhaps because he studied geology for his oil business.”40 Getty and Forrer knew each other well, and again at a meeting in Paris between the two men Forrer noted

Getty’s lack of “human feeling”41 Yet according to Jiri Frel, the first antiquities curator of the Getty Museum, Forrer was a “trusted advisor” to Getty.42 Whatever Forrer’s personal feelings towards Getty were he procured many pieces of ancient art for Getty from some of the most illustrious aristocratic collectors in England.

In 1951 Forrer acted as the agent between Lord Lansdowne and Getty for the sale of two statues. The famous Lansdowne Herakles, which was found at Tivoli, Roman

Emperor Hadrian’s villa, one of the most well-known sculptures in England. Also part of the purchase was the exquisite marble sculpture Leda and the Swan. Getty was able to purchase these two masterpieces for the paltry sum of about $30,000.00. The British economy was in ruins, and the aristocracy for desperate for funds and began selling off their art. Between 1951and 1953 Getty bought from at least eleven aristocratic families in

Britian with Spink and Son handling almost all of the sales. Some of the most illustrious collecting families were on this list such as, Lord Pembroke, the 10th Earl of Elgin, Earl of Feversham, Sir Francis Cook, Duchess of Wellington, Earl of Fitzwilliam, and Lord

Harewood. On July 31, 1953 Getty wrote Forrer to ask for any information on pieces that are from “any former collection.”43 Getty wanted fine art, but he also wanted the pieces to have an aristocratic pedigree.

40 Sharon Waxman, Loot, (New York, Times Books, 2008), 323-324. 41 Russel Miller, House of Getty, (New York, Bloomsbury Publishing, 1985), 258. 42 Getty Library, Special Collections, Getty Family Papers, Box 5, 1986.IA.22-1, Jiri Frel file. 43 Getty Special Collections, Getty Family Papers, Box 1986.IA.48-4, Spinks and Son file.

62

Getty preferred to buy ancient art that had been in the famous collections. This was not by accident and there were several reasons why he developed this habit. In the case of the English collections, which are discussed in this paper Getty had capital in a time when the British aristocracy were being crushed by taxes and a depressed economy.

These same individuals were also part of a network of collectors that Getty and his agents had access to. Getty says, “To all intents and purposes, the modern-day collector of ancient Greek and Roman art must confine himself to buying from one or another of two sources-well-established and highly reputable dealers or other collectors.” While it is not the scope of this thesis to explore if the ancient art that Getty acquired was from looted archeological sites, his statements surrounding the issue seem very naïve, especially for a seasoned businessman like himself. Mitchel Samuels wrote Getty a letter early in their relationship: “I know all the antiquaries from the archeologists up, in Italy” and to please give them (French and Co.) a try.44 It is an odd letter and says in almost code, that

Samuels is still able to acquire antiquities out of Italy, by less than legal means. There is no evidence in Getty’s journals that he knows he is buying looted artifacts. In his autobiographies, which are the for the public to read, he makes a point of explaining how important it is to buy from reputable dealers. Getty goes on to explain that it is difficult to export ancient art out of Italy and Greece, as embargoes are strictly enforced and how times have changed since Lord Elgin’s time when one could just take what was wanted.45

All of which is true, and makes buying from existing collections in Britian all the more appealing. Yet there seems to be a little bit more to this practice of buying from famous

44 Getty Special Collections, Getty Family Papers, Box 1986.IA.48-5, French and Co file. 45 Getty, Joys of Collecting, 29-31.

63 aristocratic collections. Getty had a large ego and by acquiring art that had been owned by someone like Lord Elgin, Getty now had direct affiliation with the prominent owner.

Getty was now part of history as a distinguished ancient art collector, and was consequently associated with the gentry class. This was not just for legitimacy as an art collector, but it also had social implications. For Americans, wealthy or not, there were feelings of cultural inferiority when compared with Europeans. Getty was so proud to bring classical art to the West Coast. When he acquired the pieces for the Elgin’s collection he wrote, “I derive much pride and satisfaction from my success in obtaining these three examples of the fabled Elgin Marbles, and thus making it possible for my own countrymen to see and admire them in the J. Paul Getty Museum in Los Angeles.”46

During this same period Getty have acquired the Lansdowne Herakles and said, “this magnificent marble statue, which once delighted the Emperor Hadrian and for a century and a half was the pride of Britain is now completely ‘Americanized’-on view for all to see at the Getty Museum.”47 Getty not only collected art for his own personal pleasure or even his own collections, but wanted the American public to have the opportunity to view art. Getty does not seem to have been outwardly insecure, but was acutely aware of the average American being uncomfortable with museums and art, and he criticizes the

“cultural illiteracy so often displayed by Americans particularly American men.”48 Getty was very cognisant of the cultural attitudes of his fellow Americans, and wanted to bring art back to the states. There were other American collectors that were also bringing ancient Greek and Roman art to America.

46 Getty, Joys of Collecting, 26. 47 Thompson, 123. 48 Ibid., 124.

64

Getty was a contemporary with William Randolph Hearst. They were both rich and powerful men from the West Coast. They were also both avid art collectors and traveled in the same social circles. In fact, Getty was neighbors with Marion Davies,

Hearst’s mistress, in Santa Monica. Later in life Getty compared himself to Hearst and recognized both the positive and negative aspects of their likeness. Getty defends Hearst from his critics, but also acknowledges that he (Getty), “spent 95 percent or more money on my business, while Hearst was the opposite.” It is clear from Getty’s writings that he did venerate Hearst and says that, “I guess I’m like Hearst in that I admire splendor. I like a palatial atmosphere, noble rooms, long tables, old silver, fine furniture.” Getty compares San Simeon to Hadrian’s villa, and then goes on to compare his own estate

Sutton Place to them both.49

When Getty is written about, authors often cite a quote in which Getty speaks about being the reincarnation of Hadrian, and he is mocked for having such outlandish thoughts. Here is the quote, and it reflects how Getty saw his place in history as a great man, as a collector, and ancient world.

I have always felt I had a great deal in common with to people widely separated by time- (William) Randolph Hearst and Hadrian. I can scarcely be a reincarnation of Mr. Hearst with his being a contemporary of mine, but I have wondered for many years why I have for so long felt such a close affinity with Hadrian. When I read about him and his villa and his life, I feel I already know it all and understand why he made the decisions he did. I would very much like to think I was a reincarnation of his spirit and I would like to emulate him as closely as I can…Hadrian, Hearst and I are alike-we all liked things on a grand scale.50

49 Getty, As I See It, 250. 50 Thompson, 123.

65

Getty did emulate Hearst and Hadrian and by owning pieces that they had owned he was able to link himself to them. When the opportunity arose in 1949 to purchase art from the

Hearst collection Getty acquired the Orpheus mosaic floor, and later in 1971 Getty would purchase the mosaic of the Boxing Scene that had previously been part of the Hearst collection.51 Portions of Heart’s collection, unlike Getty’s, were sold off at various times during Hearst’s life, though the sales barely dented Hearst’s massive collection. Michael

Govan of the Los Angeles County Museum, wrote a very insightful statement about

Hearst. “Yet for all of the assumptions about William Randolph Hearst’s ‘omnivorous’ appetite for art, he cannot accurately be cast as an indiscriminate consumer of material culture or as a manipulator of the art market as we know it in today’s hot climate of celebrity artists and status acquisitions.”52 Govan’s point is one that really must be examined. Like Getty, Hearst is seen as a one-dimensional collector, that is portrayed at times as a borderline hoarder. As discussed earlier in this paper, Hearst was knowledgeable about art and the pieces that he bought. Hearst had an enormous apartment in New York, Marion Davies expansive bungalow in Santa Monica, San

Simeon, and other various estates that were all full of art and antiques, and he still had warehouses full of art and furniture. It is this kind of collecting that was unseemly to well-heeled European collectors. There is an air of condescension when certain art dealers and writers speak about Hearst and Getty. Even the curators at the Getty Museum critique Getty’s taste in art. There is a painting, Spring by Sir Lawrence Alma-Tadema, a

Victorian painting over flowing with flowers, ancient architecture and beautiful women

51 Victoria Kastner, “William Randolph Hearst and J. Paul Getty: Collectors of Antiquities”, October 16, 2010, The Getty Museum Lecture Series, accessed March 20, 2018, http://www.getty.edu/museum/programs/lectures/hearst_getty_lecture.html. 52 Mary L. Levkoff, Hearst, The Collector, (New York, Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 2008), 8.

66 in Greek costume. This piece that is hugely popular with the public, but utterly disdained by some of the staff. It is viewed as not being serious enough as a painting and that

Alma-Tadema, was not the right kind of artist. Curator Jill Finsten said, “This is Mr.

Getty's taste. That taste was essentially conservative, middle class and as Victorian as the poems of Rudyard Kipling. Apparently Getty chose these paintings, at least in part, because he resonated to their romantic vision of an ancient world in which everything is splendid and squalor does not exist.”53 It is this type of criticism that was directed at

Getty for the kind of art he acquired, it was not intellectual art, and as a consequence he was not really taken seriously as a collector. It was the same for Hearst. There seems to be a variety of factors that contributed to them both being sneered at in the art world.

They were both from the West Coast, and were from new money, which was perceived as being un-cultured. Both men also had very public personas, and at times they both had very negative publicity. In some ways that negativity clouded their status as legitimate collectors.

In Getty’s book As I See It, which he wrote in the last years of his life at the age of eighty-three, he reflects back on his years of collecting. Like many collectors his motivation was multi-dimensional. There were social, intellectual, status, and aesthetic reasons why Getty collected art, but by Getty’s own admission he was addicted to collecting art. Getty muses about himself, “I am an apparently incurable art-collecting addict.” He goes as far to reference his own journals from previous decades. On October

5, 1958 he wrote, “My art buying is over, except for some unexpected temptation.” It is rather amusing that he gives himself an out full knowing that he will not be able to stop

53 Pareicia Ware Biederman, “Crowd Pleaser at the Getty” Los Angeles Times, August 8, 1993, accessed April 19, 2018, http://articles.latimes.com/1993-08-08/news/we-21591_1_getty-museum

67 collecting. Less than six months later in March of 1959 Getty had purchased six pictures, including a Degas and a Renoir. Then on July 15 1960 Getty once again wrote, “I think I should stop buying pictures. I have enough invested in them. I am also stopping my buying of Greco-Roman marbles and bronzes, I’m through buying French furniture. My mind is set. I am not going to change it.” It was all to no avail, as Getty never stopped acquiring art of any kind. Just as Getty came out of retirement to continue in the oil business, Getty could not stop acquiring art. Yet it was not just the collecting addiction that was his motivation.54

Aside from all of the psychological and social reasons one collects, the sheer joy one gets from beautiful objects must not be discounted as a driving force behind collecting art. Getty wrote in his book The Joy of Collecting: “I hold that few human activities provide an individual with a greater sense of personal gratification than the assembling of a collection of art objects that appeal to him and that he feels have true and lasting beauty.”55 In addition, Getty co-wrote a book with Ethel Le Vane entitled,

Collector’s Choice, which is about art connoisseurship. There is a quote from this book that Getty uses in both of his books The Joys of Collecting and As I See It that he says summarizes his philosophy on his collection.

To me, my works of art are all vividly alive. They are the embodiment of who ever created them- a mirror of their creator’s hopes, dreams and frustrations. They have led eventful lives-pampered by the aristocracy and pillages by revolution, courted with ardor and cold-bloodedly abandoned. They have been honored by drawing rooms and humbled by attics. So many worlds in their life-span, yet all were transitory. Their worlds have long since disintegrated, yet they live on-and, for the most part, they are as beautiful as ever. 56

54 Getty, As I See It, 273-276. 55 Getty, The Joys of Collecting, 1. 56 Ibid., 15.

68

Getty goes on to discuss, “That beauty endures even though nations and civilizations crumble; the work of art can be passed on from generation to generation and century to century, providing historical continuity of true values.”57 These passages reflect Getty’s thoughts as a collector and how cognizant he is of the place in history that art plays, but also his place in the pantheon of great collectors. Getty was able to live vicariously in the past through his art. He wrote that “the collector can, at will, transport himself back in time and walk and talk with the great Greek philosophers, the emperors of ancient Rome, the people, great and small, of civilizations long dead, but which live again through the objects in his collection.”58 A collector could claim a relationship with the past owner all the way back to the ancient world. Collectors could “express their identities through their collections” by changing the very appearance of the art. In the twentieth century collectors no longer modified the art to suit their own needs. Author Erin Thompson wrote, “Modern collectors no longer manipulate the physical structure of antiquities-but this does not mean that manipulation is no longer possible.”59 Twentieth century collectors shaped their identities through ancient art, and one way that this was possible was to change or embellish the provenance of the ancient art.

For all of Getty’s attempts at scholarship and learning, he did have a weakness for romanticizing ancient art and creating provenance where it clearly did not exist. There were several instances where Getty was blinded by his own imagination. The Venus

Torso Getty bought from the Barsanti Gallery in Italy was sold with the provenance that it was found off the coast near Anzio, ancient Antium. Further research implied that the

57 Ibid., 15. 58 Ibid., 33. 59 Thompson, 62.

69 sculpture came from Nero’s villa, and that the coast line had changed over the centuries and that the villa was now underwater. This was all clever marketing by the dealer, who knew Getty well enough as a collector to pander to his wants and the desires. Getty was all too ready to believe the story, as it fit into his own narrative about his collection.

Getty wanted art that had noble attribution. In this case the sculpture turned out to be a fake and none of the story or the supposed research was true.60 The other noteworthy example of the manipulation of provenance is the Cottenham Relief. This piece, a Greek votive relief c.500 BCE was found in Cottenham England in 1911 by a farm laborer. The piece is not deemed a forgery, but the provenance of being dug up on an English farm is a rather unlikely tale. The story that is generally told is that an antiquities collector Roger

Gale lived in Cottenham in 1728 and that this piece belonged to him and somehow got lost and buried. Getty bought the piece through Spink and Son in 1953. Getty himself and then the Getty Museum have perpetuated this tale about the provenance of this piece and it does not sit well Thompson and she wrote that, “Getty’s attempts to transform his own past have transformed our perceptions of the ancient past.”61 In Thompson’s book

Possession, she analyzes the different types of collectors and Getty’s behavior is not out of the ordinary. He used art as props in his own fantasies about the ancient world. It is these imaginative stories about his artwork that he voiced to fellow collectors and art dealers that contributed to his reputation as a less than savvy collector.

Getty has been criticized for not being the right kind of collector, or not buying the right kind of art, but he bought what he liked. He was also criticized for not being passionate enough about art, and for being unfeeling. Getty enjoyed fantasizing about the

60 Ibid, 121. 61 Thompson, 128-129.

70 ancient world through the physical monuments that have been left behind, namely sculpture. He even wrote a book, A Journey to Corinth, that was inspired by the

Lansdowne Herakles and a short story A Stroll Along Minerva Street that was inspired by the fake Venus Torso. Neither of these stories is a masterpiece of literature, but it shows what art meant to him and to his identity. Getty felt closer to the ancient past through his art, even if this connection was illusionary. Unfortunately, the imagined identity Getty created affected his credibility as serious intellectual collector.

Yet Getty was not ashamed of his imagination, in fact he embraced it and he wrote, “We (collectors) begin by reading a brief catalogue description of our treasure.

Then we elaborate on it. And the next thing we know we’re reconstructing its life- creating a history, plus.” He knew exactly what he was doing; he was not under any sort of delusions. Imagination for Getty was not just a tool he used to muse about his ancient art, he used it to make billions of dollars in business. Getty equated imagination with his investment prospects and his great wealth. Getty also linked art appreciation to business success to a more productive and educated society. Getty thought that art made him a better person, not morally, but intellectually. Getty felt that the public could benefit from art also, and that art was instrumental to civilization, which as will be shown in the next chapter as part of the inspiration for Getty to build the Getty Villa in Malibu. 62

62 Thompson, 120-121.

71

CHAPTER THREE

Getty and His Museum

Ancient art collectors have been shaping their identities through ancient art since

Roman times. In Rome a collector could donate a piece to a temple or other public building in a show of devotion to the state as a way to gain social status and legitimacy.

In England during the eighteenth and nineteenth century collectors had an additional outlet to use in conjunction with their social networks, which was the museum. The connection between English collectors and the British Museum was somewhat symbiotic, it was almost the natural progression of the great collectors that eventually their art work would end up in museums. Collectors donated or lent pieces, funded expeditions, and financed the museums themselves. Some ancient art collectors, such as the Bourbon King

Charles III, had a large enough collection that they opened museums of their own. King

Charles III’s private museum would eventually become the Real Museo Borbonico.1 In the twentieth century the wealthy Americans built important art collections that rivaled those held by aristocratic Europeans.

Affluent American art collectors wanted to demonstrate that they were philanthropists. Carnegie opened libraries, J.P. Morgan donated to colleges and museums, John D. Rockefeller gave millions upon millions of dollars to fund education and universities. The motivation behind their philanthropy varied from religion, guilt, altruism, self-aggrandizement, legitimacy, and social status. J.P. Getty would continue tradition of philanthropy that solidified his place in history as a great art collector and a philanthropist through his foundations and his museum.

1 Mattusch, 77.

72

For some it might be hard not to be cynical when it comes to why Getty acquired art and his philanthropy to museums. Getty biographer Robert Lenzner believes that

Getty’s donations to museums were for tax deductions. However, if we see Getty as a serious collector and not just as a shrewd businessman, the primary motivation for his donations appears to be philanthropic. Art collectors generally do not donate their favorite piece of art for a tax write off. There are other ways to maximize your tax deductions without donating a piece of art that you cherish.2 To paint Getty as a collector that acquired art for financial gain is short sighted. Yes, Getty certainly used his experience in business when acquiring art, but art was not just a financial transaction for him. As Getty explained in The Joys of Collecting, “the true worth of a collection cannot

–and should not- be measured solely in terms of its monetary value.” Getty was criticized by fellow art collectors and art dealers for not spending enough money on paintings.

Many of the pieces in his collection were not considered masterpieces.3 Author Lenzner uses this quote to argue that Getty was insincere about why he collected and that it was not about the art, but whether or not it was a good bargain. Getty collected what he liked, and did not fall into the latest fads of art collecting. Again there can be no doubt that

Getty was a cunning businessman, and that the hunt for art could be likened to the hunt for oil. He used the same business techniques of stoicism while buying art, which made it hard for art dealers to be able to gauge how Getty felt about the piece. Forrer from Spink and Son said of Getty, “He was the most difficult of our customers…He never expresses his feelings, never seems carried away with the beauty of an object.”4 Getty talked about

2 Lenzner,184. 3 Ibid., 185 4 Ibid., 186.

73 being targeted because of his wealth by art dealers and wrote “sharpsters began offering me fake Titians and Rembrandts by the dozen.” He also wrote that “a person who is reputed to be wealthy grows a tough impervious skin. It’s a protective carapace, essential for survival.”5 Getty was, and is a hard man to understand. He was rather aloof when purchasing art and it added to his reputation as an odd collector, and at times he was very contradictory.

Very shortly after he became a collector Getty started loaning art to various museums and institutions. One of the first instances was in 1938 Getty anonymously purchased the Rembrandt painting, The Portrait of Martin Looten. There are times when a piece of art embodies a country and is considered part of their national heritage, and the

Martin Looten was one such painting. Getty wrote that “The Dutch press and public deplored the country’s ‘loss’ of the magnificent Rembrandt to an ‘unnamed American.’” and wrote that “emphatic protest arose.” Getty bought this painting, as he said “fair and square” and had it shipped to New York, but he was aware of the importance of this piece. He contacted the New York World’s Fair officials that was to take place in April

1939, and offered to loan this painting and some other pieces to the Fine Arts Pavilion for display. Getty explains in his book The Joys of Collecting how he felt about this painting by saying, “the Marten Looten was not lost to the Netherlands-for it, like every

Rembrandt, will forever be Dutch. The portrait is in America, that is true. However, it is acting as a cultural ambassador of your country and heritage.” In the early 1950’s Getty would donate this painting to the Los Angeles County Museum.6 This narrative is important as it gives insight into the thought process and motivation of Getty about art,

5 Getty, As I See It, 344-346. 6 Getty, The Joys of Collecting, 35-43.

74 the public and museums. This was not an isolated statement and Getty makes similar declarations in his other writings. Getty would go on to donate and lend many other pieces to museums, including his prized Ardabil carpet, which was also donated to the

LACMA.

Getty was aware of how his collecting had evolved from collecting for his

“personal possessions” to when he “realized that my collection had grown important enough for the public to have an interest in viewing it.”7 When donating and loaning his art no longer seemed to be sufficient Getty made plans to open his own museum. It was

Getty philosophy about art and society that motivated him to take an active role in working with museums in making art available to the public. Getty wrote:

I am convinced that the true collector does not acquire objects of art for himself alone. His is no selfish drive or desire to have and hold a painting, a sculpture, or a fine example of antique furniture so that only he may see and enjoy it. Appreciating the beauty of an object, he is willing and even eager to have others share his pleasure. It is, of course, for this reason that so many collectors loan their finest pieces to museums or establish museums of their own where the items they have painstakingly collected may be viewed by the general public. 8

Getty could have established a museum any place in the world, New York, Paris,

London, but he wanted to found his own museum in Los Angeles. He wanted to bring fine art to the West Coast, and was adamant that his museum would be free for the public. Getty’s museums have had a lasting effect on California culture and identity, and an examination of the museum environment in L.A. is necessary to assess the full impact the Getty Villa had on Los Angeles.

7 Getty, The Joys of Collecting, 276. 8 Ibid., 2.

75

Los Angeles is known for movies, beaches, and pop culture. Although it has been called “the city that American intellectuals love to hate” L.A. actually has more museums than any other city in the world.9 There have been museums in the Los Angeles area since the turn of the twentieth century, and today there are over three hundred museums in the metropolitan area.10 While there are many public institutions in Los Angeles, most are very specialized foundations dedicated to local history that can be classified as quaint at best, and provincial at worst. The two principal art museums in the Los Angeles area during the 1960’s were the Huntington and the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, but it was the LACMA that was the cultural epicenter for art collectors in Los Angeles.

The LACMA has its origins as the Los Angeles Museum of History, Science and

Art, which opened in 1910. The Museum of History, Science and Art continued as a multi-use institution until 1961 when the LA County Museum of Art (LACMA) opened new facilities that were dedicated to art. Even before the LACMA became devoted to art this museum acted as the primary art institution in Los Angeles, much like the British

Museum did in the eighteenth-century art collectors. William Randolph Hearst, J.P. Getty and Norton Simon all donated and lent their art collections to this institution. Elevated by the donations made by wealthy collectors the LACMA became more than just a regional art museum in Loa Angeles. While the LACMA had brought some cultural legitimacy to

Los Angeles it was still the only substantial art museum in Los Angeles. It would be over a decade before another major art museum opened in L.A.11

9 David Carrier, Museum Skepticism, (Durham and London, Duke University Press, 2006), 178. 10 Borislav Stanic, Museum Companion to Los Angeles, (Beverly Hills, Museon Publishing, 1996), 6. 11 Los Angeles County Museum, accessed February 15, 2018, http://www.lacma.org/overview.

76

In the 1960’s two great collectors would be working in private to found two new museums, which culminated in the creation of two new museums in Los Angeles. In

1974 the Getty Villa opened, but it was also the year that Los Angeles art collector and philanthropist Norton Simon took over as owner and director of the Pasadena Art

Institute. Getty and Norton Simon were not necessarily competitors, but their collections and museums are compared to each other. Reporter Grace Glueck explained: “The paintings collected by Mr. Getty are notably lacking in the star quality of, say, those acquired by Malibu neighbor, Norton Simon.”12 Simon was a powerful member of the

Southern California art community. He had sat on various boards including the LACMA, and was instrumental in the formation of the LACMA as a dedicated art institution.

Norton Simon had been expanding his art collection, and while he had always lent his art to the LACMA, he wanted a permanent facility to house his entire collection. In 1974 the

Pasadena Art Institute was financially insolvent and was in jeopardy of closing. For

Simon it was the perfect opportunity. He took over as director and assumed financial responsibility of the institution and changed the name to the Norton Simon Museum. The

Pasadena Art Institute had a long history, and was founded in 1922, and had been small museum that was in a Victorian house. The Institute had acquired an impressive art collection through donations that included pieces by Kandinsky and Klee. In 1969

Institute moved into new facilities that could hold their burgeoning collection. Norton

Simon’s collections and pieces that he acquired while director of the museum, which included Picasso, Van Gough, Modigliani were added to the existing collections, to

12 Grace Glueck, “Getty Museum is a Hit With Visitors”, New York Times, January 20, 1974. Getty Special Collections, Neuerburg Collection, Box 10, Series 5, Folder 3.

77 create a celebrated art museum in Pasadena.13 The museum grew from a small-town art collection housed in a Victorian into a world class institution that has helped build the intellectual identity of the people in the L.A. area, and is an integral part of the museum collective of Los Angeles.

The origins of the J. Paul Getty Museum will show how Getty’s philosophy on art, history, and museums were his motivation for founding his own museum. Getty felt that art benefitted society. Getty did not have a high opinion of the common American, and his comments can be taken as egotistical and condescending. Getty repeatedly used the term “barbarian” when referencing modern society. It is a very telling term for Getty to use, especially since the very origins of the word come from ancient Greece. Getty wanted to change the average American’s perception of art, but not just for the sake of art appreciation. The real goal was to overcome the ugly American persona, that he felt brought down our culture. He wrote, “Twentieth-century barbarians cannot be transformed into cultured civilized human beings until they acquire an appreciation and love for art. The transformation cannot take place until they have the opportunity to be exposed to fine art-to see, begin to understand and finally savor and marvel.”14 Getty equated art with civilization and with business and a more productive and profitable world. Getty believed: “In learning about ancient Greek and Roman art, one cannot help but also learn about the civilizations and the people who produced the art. This will unquestionably serve to broaden the individual’s intellectual horizons and, by increasing his knowledge and understanding of the past civilizations, greatly aid him in knowing and

13 Norton Simon Museum, accessed April 2, 2018. https://www.nortonsimon.org/about/about-norton- simon/. 14 Getty, As I See It, 277.

78 understanding our own.”15 Getty had changed himself from a West Coast playboy, who occasionally worked in the oil fields, to a cultured English gentleman. Through the decades of collecting, going to museums and ancient sites Getty had become an intellectual art connoisseur, and he wrote after “repeated visits to the great museums and galleries of the countries in which I found myself. While I don’t believe I was consciously aware of it at the time, my love of fine art increased-possibly through some process of visual osmosis.”16 Getty wrote about how his own collecting had transformed him and his identity, and he wanted to provide that opportunity to the public through his art and museum.

The Getty Villa

In May of 1954 Getty opened his Ranch House in Malibu to the public as the J.

Paul Getty Museum. Getty was not a collector that gloated over his collection, as it must be noted that Getty never returned to California after 1951. He just kept acquiring art and sending it back to the States to a house that he never visited. The suggestion that Getty only collected art as an investment could be strengthened by the fact that much of his collection was sent directly to the museum in Malibu. Yet while he was acquiring antiquities, he was simultaneously traveling to Italy and Greece studying the ancient world. Getty wrote that the art he purchased he “desired to have as personal possessions.

For the most part, the items were sent to my home in California.”17 While Getty donated and loaned his art, there is no evidence that he ever sold any piece. Getty was passionate about his art and museum, and even though was not physically near the majority of his art

15 Getty, The Joys of Collecting, 32-33. 16 Ibid., 264. 17 Getty, As I See It, 276.

79 he kept a mental inventory of his collection. Very early on it was apparent that the Ranch

House was not large enough to house the expanding collection. In 1957 a gallery was added to the Ranch House.18 Getty was a man of vision and imagination and in 1968 he decided to build a new museum. This quote from Getty written in 1952 and over twenty years before the Getty Villa opened provides insight into why he chose an ancient Roman villa to base his museum on and how he felt about the ancient world. “I walked to the

Porta Laurentina. Admired the forum and surrounding buildings. It seems to me that the ancient cities had more splendor and luxury and more of the amenities of life than modern cities. The market in Ostia was certainly finer than in any modern city. And what modern city has a forum, theater, palestra, and baths.”19 The quote also illustrates his thoughts on modern cities and culture. Getty wanted more culture in the cities of his time, especially LA. While beaches and pretty girls were nice, he was not satisfied and sought to develop the cultural landscape of Los Angeles, through his collections and eventually through architecture. Getty had disdain for modern architecture and wanted to base his new museum on an ancient Roman villa, the Villa dei Papiri at Herculaneum.

Getty’s idea to have his new museum in the form of a Roman villa was not just a superficial attempt to bring Roman architecture to Malibu. For Getty this was a serious endeavor, he hired scholars, architects and craftsmen to design and construct the villa in an authentic historic style. When discussing the Getty Villa, one cannot just speak about the art collection, or even the intent behind the museum, and not examine the building itself. Getty was aware of the significance of the ‘villa’ to the elite class, and to

18 Getty Publication, The Getty Villa, 11. 19 J.P. Getty Journal April 24, 1952, Getty Foundation, Digital Collections, accessed May 9, 2018, http://rosettaapp.getty.edu:1801/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE282960&change_lng=.

80 understand what the luxury villa meant to ancient Romans is to understand what it meant to Getty.

The Getty Villa for Getty was a culmination of decades of collecting and studying ancient art. Getty believed that “the most satisfactory way to display ancient art is in a context similar to the one which it was originally created.”20 Building on this belief the

Getty Villa is decorated with replicas of mosaics and wall paintings. Replica does not really fully explain the extent of craftsmanship and the quality materials that were used to construct the Getty Villa. Antique and rare marbles from all over the world were used just as the Romans had done with their own luxury villas. The Villa dei Papiri has never been fully excavated, and the Getty Villa is actually based on several Roman villas, particularly the wall paintings. The Stone relief griffins were based on the House of

Griffins, the spiral columns with fluted bases were used in the Villa San Marco, the stone work used in the atrium of the Getty Villa was taken from the House of Sallust, and the stone floor design from the House of Faun. The floral frieze with lion head spouts were copied from the House of the Vettii.21 Extreme care was taken in the planning of the

Getty Villa, for instance the gardens are landscaped with plants, flowers and herbs that the Romans would have had growing at their villas, not just to replicate the visual look, but also the smells. Replicas of sculptures that were found at the Villa dei Papiri were placed in the same positions as documented during excavations at the Getty Villa. Even though Getty was in England he had say on the smallest of details and the major decisions concerning the design and construction of the Villa.

20 Dr. Norman Neuerburg, “The New J. Paul Getty Museum”, Archaeology Vol. 27, No. 3, July 1974, Archaeological Institute of America, 181. 21 Getty Publication, The Getty Villa, 59, 62, 65.

81

Getty started the process of designing the Getty Villa by contacting Stephen

Garrett, an architect based out of London, who specialized in the restoration of historic buildings. Garrett had worked for Getty before on his properties in Italy and was experienced in dealing with the exacting collector. Garrett would act as the project manager, on a grand scale, for all of the various people and firms that would be instrumental to the design and construction of the Getty Villa. Garrett would eventually become the first director of the Getty Villa and hold this position for over ten years.22

From the start this was a very complicated project as Getty lived in England and had no real inclination to make the trip to California. This was due to the fact that since 1942

Getty would not fly. He wrote that he had an “irrational fear of flying …triggered by a harrowing flight from St. Louis to Tulsa.”23 Garrett would act as Getty’s eyes and ears for the Villa project and wrote almost sixty detailed reports for Getty in the process of the six years it took to build the villa. Part of the process in design of the Getty Villa was to consult with scholars about ancient Roman villas.

Dr. Norman Neuerburg, was a professor of architectural history and was hired as a part-time consultant for the project, which quickly turned into an all-encompassing job.

Neuerburg traveled to Italy to study the Villa dei Papiri and other ancient sites. Dr.

Neuerburg was a respected scholar and his presence did add a level of legitimacy to the project. Neuerburg was able to translate his own and past research on the Villa die Papiri and other villas into specifications that could be constructed into the physical museum.

22 Stephen Garrett,” Architect, museum director, 1999”, accessed February 18, 2018, http://letterspace.com/LETTERING_TOURS/1999_UPDATE/profiles/stephen_garrett.htm. 23 Getty, As I See It, 122.

82

To understand the scope of the project it is important to examine the real Villa dei Papiri in order to understand what inspired Getty’s motivation.

The Villa dei Papiri archeological site is not fully excavated, but there is a large amount of scholarship about the site. In 1750 the Villa of the Papiri was discovered at

Herculaneum. The villa was a spectacular archeological find for several reasons. First the scale and grandeur of villa is extraordinary, and the library that was found there had over eighteen hundred papyrus scrolls. The art that was found in the villa is one of the few primarily intact ancient art collections in the Roman world. This site and the contents give insight into ancient Roman art collectors and how they shaped their intellectual identity through art and the villa.

The Villa dei Papiri is what is termed as a villa maritima, and there was no pretense that this villa was a working farm as with the villa rustica, but was built with the specific purpose “as a physical container for reflective leisure and enjoyment.”24

Although there were many villas in the area of Herculaneum, according to current archeological data the Villa dei Papiri dwarfs even the largest villas in the Bay of

Naples.25 The Villa dei Papiri was built over a period of three centuries and from what has been excavated it is estimated that it is a sprawling 65,000 sq.ft. waterfront villa. It was constructed on five levels that stretched over two hundred and fifty meters along the coast.26 The villa was built with imported marbles, and there are mosaics and wall paintings throughout. The sheer size of the villa is inspiring and in one of the large

24 Diane Favro, From Pleasure, to “Guilty Pleasure”, to Simulation: Rebirthing the Villa of the Papyri, in The Villa of the Papyri at Herculaneum, ed. Mantha Zarmakoupi (Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 2010), 155. 25 Mattusch, 2005, 12. 26 Carol C. Mattusch, Programming Sculpture? Collection and Display in the Villa of the Papyri, in The Villa of the Papyri at Herculaneum, ed. Mantha Zarmakoupi (Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 2010), 80.

83 peristyles, which was 347 feet long by 131 feet wide there was a pool that was 220 feet long and 24 feet wide, that is theorized to have been a fish pond. Karl Weber, a Swiss engineer, excavated the villa for over a decade starting in 1750 and unearthed its many treasures. There were marble and bronze sculptures, mosaics, wall paintings, not to mention the extensive Greek library that was full of Epicurean philosophy. More importantly it was Weber’s meticulous drawings of the site that documented the villa.27

The art collection, library and the villa together create a picture of how an ancient Roman art collector lived and what he collected. The Villa die Papiri was a reflection of the owner, who is one of the most renowned collectors of ancient Rome.

The current research indicates the owner of the Villa dei Papiri was Lucius

Calpurnius Piso Casesonius, known as Piso. Understanding Piso’s intellectual identity and who he was as a collector can help shed light on the influence of Hellenistic art on

Roman society. Piso is one of the great collectors to have been documented from ancient

Rome. There were many collectors, but what is unique about Piso is that we have a good portion of his collection that can be examined today. Piso is illustrative of a Roman collector that had the immense wealth and high social status that enabled him to become a great collector. Piso followed the traditional cursos honorum and held the office of censor in 50 BCE and then consul in 58 BCE. Piso is also well known for being the father-in-law of Julius Caesar. An important factor in Piso’s collecting was his position as proconsul of Macedonia, meaning that he controlled all of Greece. Piso was a follower of

Epicurean philosophy and was well known for his philhellenism.28 Piso was a member of the elite social class of ancient Rome, and he had progressed through life in a predictable

27 J. Paul Getty Museum, Guide to the Getty Villa, (Los Angeles, The J. Paul Getty Trust, 2005), 46. 28 Mattusch, 2005, 20-21.

84 way. He had served in the military, he was a politician, he collected art, he owned a villa.

These were all attributes that were typical of a man of his social status. The luxury villa in ancient Rome was essential to social status; it is reminiscent of the English country estate and the mansions of twentieth century social elites. While the villa served as an indicator of social standing, it also became part of the owner’s identity. The kind of art and the subject matter all reflected who the owner was as an individual. In order to understand in part why Getty chose to recreate the Villa dei Papiri, one must examine what the villa meant to ancient Romans, as Getty had been shaping his identity by their standards for decades.

Roman identity was enveloped in Hellenistic art, and this also extend to the private villa. Greek design aesthetics used by elite Romans would take the villa to new heights that would display astounding luxury, and would serve as status symbols that reflected their owner’s power and influence. The Roman elite built villas of various types: rustica, urbana, suburbana and marittima. Aside from geography the real difference between the villas was the purpose. The villas fell into two distinct groups: a working villa, such as a villa rustica, which was essentially a large estate that was a working farm, or a pleasure villa meant for relaxation and amusement, such as the villa marittima. The Romans used the villas for different reasons, and one of them filled a psychological need. Author James Ackerman says that, “the villa is a paradigm, not only of architecture, but of ideology; it is a myth or fantasy.”29 The Roman elite built and carefully decorated the villa marittima in the Bay of Naples as places where they could forget about the violent and competitive outside world. The Roman elite class had the

29 James Ackerman, The Villa as Paradigm, Perspecta, Vol. 22, Paradigms of Architecture, (1986), 10-31, 12.

85 means to build luxurious villas to suit whatever physical or psychological need they saw fit, whether it was social status, intellectual identity, or both.

Roman culture was a very competitive society and owning an extravagant villa would convey wealth and power they needed to secure their social position. By having their associates, clients, and friends visit their villa it was a way to advertise one’s wealth, status and intellectual identity. For example, Cicero wrote to Atticus, “What business is that of mine, you will ask. Only that it proves that my house was a good investment, and is beginning to open people’s eyes to the fact that is quite legitimate to make use of a friend’s pocket to buy a place that give one a social position.”30 This quote from Cicero illustrates what an important role the villa played in determining social status, and that it was a very specific way to show wealth, and therefore power. In a society were status was everything, the villa was a very visible symbol of one’s place in the world. This would hold true for Getty in the twentieth century.

Getty’s museum was a symbol of his power and intellect, and his English estate,

Sutton Place, was used in the same way the Romans used their luxury villas. In Getty’s book, As I See It, he talks about all of the people he had over to his estate Sutton Place.

All of the social elites, such as aristocrats, politicians, dignitaries, ambassadors, and businessmen were visitors at Sutton Place. He recalls how the Queen of England came for lunch and commented on his antiques, and how knowledgeable she was about eighteenth-century French furniture and art.31 Getty reminisces about a cocktail party he had in 1975, and goes through a list of guests that reads like the United Nations and wrote

30 Marcus Tullius Cicero, Letters to Atticus Volume 1, Letters 13-14, trans. E.O. Winstedt, (London and New York: William Heinemann, The Macmillan Co., 1912), 39, Accessed November 17, 2017, https://books.google.com/books/about/Letters_to_Atticus.html. 31 Getty, As I See It, 234-235.

86 that his estate provided “a place where thoughts and ideas may be exchanged freely and informally.”32 Getty was aware of what was expected of his position and what was expected of him. He had shaped his identity for decades to reflect that of a classic gentleman. His English estate, much like the Roman villa was a place to display wealth and knowledge and to socialize and network with his peers.

The ‘villa’ whether ancient Roman or an English estate was much more than just a house to live in, or a place to show wealth and power. While the villa was a physical monument to the elite class that acted as a retreat from the urban areas, there was also a psychological aspect that was just as important. The villa was used as part of an imagined world where the elite class could relax and contemplate life. Author James

Ackerman argues, “The villa has remained substantially the same because it fulfills a need that never alters. Because it is not material, but psychological and ideological, this need is not subject to the influences of evolving societies and technologies. The villa accommodates a fantasy impervious to reality.”33 The villa created a world in which one could live outside the rigid social confines of Roman society. If they wanted to walk around nude in the sun, read Greek philosophy, or just gaze at the sea this was all acceptable behavior within the realm of their private villa.34 The villa gave Romans the freedom to decide what their identity should be, whether it was to contemplate philosophy or immerse themselves in Hellenistic culture and art they could. The Getty

Villa gave Getty this freedom. In a time when most museums were being built in Getty’s

32 Getty, As I See It, 236-237. 33 Ackerman, 11. 34 Mattusch, 2005, 4-5.

87 words “concrete bunker like structures” he chose to indulge his own tastes and fantasies and build a Roman villa.

In the 1970’s Los Angeles was a large metropolitan area with significant wealth from the entertainment industry, yet it was still lacking in large art institutions. Visitors had been enjoying the J. Paul Getty Museum at his ranch house, but it was welcome news of the plans for Getty’s new museum and on January 20, 1974 the LA Times wrote that,

“The J. Paul Getty Museum is an excellent addition to Southern California’s not yet adequate assortment of public displays of fine arts.”35 When the Getty Villa opened in

1974 it was panned by critics and embraced by the public. While the LA Times had initially welcomed the Getty Villa, it became a particular foe of the museum. As just a week later, LA Times Architecture Critic John Pastier wrote a scathing critique of the

Getty Villa comparing it to Knott’s Berry Farm-a southern California theme park. He argued that the “that the overall architectural mood is one on pretentious sterility.” The

Villa failed in his view “to achieve its purpose as an effective museum or as a credible replica of one of antiquities most significant buildings.”36 David Gebhard, a professor of

Architectural History at UC Santa Barbara wrote an article for the magazine Architecture

Plus that called the Getty Villa “disgusting and downright outrageous” and continued for three pages about all the reasons why the Villa is distasteful along with a six item list that among other things says that the design and the construction were “unethical”. Gebhard ends his list with, “that socially the building is deplorable because it represents the whims

35 Getty Special Collections, Dr. Norman Neuerburg Papers, Box 10, Series 5, Folder 3-4, Los Angeles Times, January 20, 1974, “The Getty Museum”. 36 John Pastier, “Architecture: What Getty Hath Wrought”, Los Angeles Times Architecture, January 28, 1974.

88 of a single man, not the desires or needs of the people.”37 The criticisms were not taken well by Getty, and especially not by Dr. Neuerburg. Getty already had a rather hostile relationship with the press and was “not surprised…that certain critics sniffed at the new museum,” but he was nevertheless disappointed at the bad press.38 For Neuerburg his professional and academic reputation had been attacked. He responded in turn with a letter to the LA Times in defense of the himself and the Getty Villa, by stating that Pastier had an “unrelenting vendetta against the Getty building.”39 The disparaging press was so bad that in May 1974 reporter Grace Glueck of the New York Times wrote, “Among certain cultural devotees in the Los Angeles area, it is the height of chic to knock the new opulent J. Paul Getty Museum without having seen it.”40 There were some individuals who seemed to have felt the same as Glueck, and expressed their displeasure with the LA

Times in letters to the paper. One Los Angeles resident asked, “Why does the Times continue to make such unflattering comments about the J. Paul Getty Museum? … What are all of the criticisms about?” Another LA resident in anticipation of the new museum wrote to the Times “I thoroughly enjoyed reading of J. Paul Getty’s plans for the new museum in Malibu. As a student of art history, I anxiously await the opening.” And in the same Times edition another LA resident wrote “I found Henry Seldis’ attitude toward the new Getty Museum to be prissy…I look forward to the opening of the Getty Museum.”41

This suggests that the public did not understand or even agree with the criticisms. Getty was “unruffled” by the negativity, and he wrote “The J. Paul Getty Museum’s sole raison

37 David Gebhard, "Getty's Museum", (Architecture Plus, 2:5, 09-10/1974, p. 58.). 38 Getty, As I See It, 283. 39 Getty Special Collections, Dr. Norman Neuerburg Papers, Box 10, Series 5, Folder 8, Los Angeles Times, September 20, 1974, “The Getty Museum”. 40 Glueck, 1974. 41Getty Special Collections, Dr. Norman Neuerburg Papers, Box 10, Series 5, Folder 3-4, Los Angeles Times, September 30, 1973, “The Getty Museum”.

89 d’etre is to make fine art freely available for viewing by the greatest possible number of people.”42

Whether the Getty Villa is viewed by critics as a garish amusement park or praised as a serious replica of an ancient Roman villa, the public flocked to visit the museum. Getty wrote in his journal January 16, 1975, “The museum has been open one year today and has had 360,000 visitors.”43 Getty was very proud that the Villa had been accepted by the public from the very beginning. As it matured as a museum, it was appreciated as a legitimate fine art institution by critics, but even before the negative press receded the Villa brought another layer of intellectual identity to Los Angeles and

California. Getty’s intent was to give people, the public, the opportunity to view art, and he accomplished his goal. Getty felt people could improve themselves through art appreciation, and the only way to accomplish this was to exposed people to art. He wrote,

“The difference between being a barbarian and a full-fledged member of a cultivated society is in the individual’s attitude toward fine art.”44 American culture was looked down upon as being uncouth and the West Coast was even more disparaged. Getty was aware of this when he wrote, “The Getty Museum was rather modest to what it would later become. But it was open to the public without charge and gave Californians and tourists visiting the state a chance to see many works of art that had no comparable counterparts in any museum west of the Mississippi River.”45 Since opening the Getty

Villa has become a destination for locals and tourists alike. It was viewed as both a

42 Getty, As I See It, 285. 43 J.P. Getty Journal January 16, 1975, Getty Foundation, Digital Collections, accessed March 7, 2018, http://rosettaapp.getty.edu:1801/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE282960&change_lng=. 44 Getty, As I See It, 276. 45 Ibid., 277.

90 kitschy spot to spend the afternoon, and a serious museum to view ancient art. The impact that it has had on the intellectual identity of Los Angeles has evolved from an art museum to a research and art center that focuses on ancient culture and art.

91

CONCLUSION

Getty’s Legacy

At the end of Getty’s life, he looked back on what he had accomplished. He reflected on his business, art collecting, friendships, and family. At the end of his book,

As I See It, he thought back on his father’s words, “It’s not how much money a man has, it’s what he does with it that counts.”1 Getty understood that he had a place in the lineage of distinguished men. He associated himself with the renowned art collectors in history, such as Lord Lansdowne, and coveted their works of art. Getty’s ego knew no bounds; he felt an affinity with Emperor Hadrian and William Randolph Hearst, and compared himself to Julius Caesar.2 Like most figures in history, there are criticisms and myths that surround Getty that emphasize the negative aspects of his life, which are not entirely undeserved. This can be problematic when seeking an objective view of an individual.

Getty’s villainous reputation coupled with his very tumultuous personal life frequently distracted from his art collecting and philanthropy, which has often been looked at with skepticism.

In 1976 when J.P. Getty died he left $700 million dollars in Getty Oil shares to the Getty Trust. This was a decision that Getty thought long about, and in December of

1974 he wrote in his journal “Trying to decide whether to give cash or stock to the museum.”3 Fortunately for the Trust Getty chose stocks, which are now worth over $9 billion dollars. This endowment was used to build the and Getty Research

1 Getty, As I See It, 328. 2 Thompson, 123-124. 3 J.P. Getty Journal July 28-December 31, 1974, Getty Foundation, Digital Collections, accessed May 5, 2018, http://rosettaapp.getty.edu:1801/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE282960&change_lng=.

92

Institute, which opened in 1997. Although the plans for the expansion of the museum had their beginnings even before Getty’s death. In a 1974 New York Times article, Stephen

Garret, the director of the Getty Villa related the plans for the museum by saying he,

Sees the future of the museum as one of devotion to scholarly research rather than public education. It proposes to mount small specialized exhibitions, to establish an extensive art photo library, the first such facility on the West Coast, to institute a lecture program and to work with local universities in training museum professionals.4

These words were either prophetic or plans had been discussed, as The J. Paul Getty

Trust would fulfill all of these hopes for the future and more. The Trust now includes The

Getty Villa, The Getty Conservation Institute, The Getty Foundation, The J. Paul Getty

Museum, the UCLA/Getty Master’s Program on the Conservation of Ethnographic and

Archeological Material, and The Getty Research Institute. The mission statement of the

Trust is as follows,

The J. Paul Getty Trust is a cultural and philanthropic institution dedicated to the presentation, conservation, and interpretation of the world’s artistic legacy.

Through the collective and individual work of its constituent programs—the Getty Conservation Institute, the Getty Foundation, the J. Paul Getty Museum, and the Getty Research Institute—the Getty pursues its mission in Los Angeles and throughout the world, serving both the general interested public and a wide range of professional communities in order to promote a vital civil society through an understanding of the visual arts.5

The mission statement very specifically places the institution in Los Angeles and for the general public. At the same time, it encourages the elevation of a world society through the understanding of art. These words echo Getty’s philosophy. Changing the individual

4 Glueck, 1974. 5 J. Paul Getty Trust, accessed on April, 12, 2018, http://www.getty.edu/about/.

93 through art will change society, and the end results will be-in Getty’s words- a less

“barbaric” and more productive world.

What began as an art collection that was housed is Getty’s ranch house grew to a respected organization that includes The Getty Research Institute. The Institute includes the library and special collections, which include extensive digital collections, oral histories, photo archives, and publications that are just a few of the resources available to the public. The library mainly focuses on the “, architecture, and archaeology with relevant materials in the humanities and social sciences. The range of the collections begins with prehistory and extends to contemporary art.” The photo archives contain over two million pieces that document art, architecture from pre-history through the twentieth century. The extensive special collections archive is open to all scholars. It has almost 50,000 rare books, and over 800 collections that equal over 12,000 linear feet of archive materials.6 After Getty’s death, when his estate was still being finalized a letter documented that all the books from “Getty-Union Bank Building, as well as the ranch house, fifty years old or older, have been delivered to the J. Paul Getty

Museum.” The collection would eventually be housed at the Getty Research Institute.7

When visiting the Getty Research Institute, it is hard not to sway under its spell. The sheer volume of resources and openness of the Institute is inspiring, as the library is

“open to all inquiries from the public.”8

6Getty Research Center, accessed on April 12, 2018, http://www.getty.edu/research/library/using/access/index.html. 7 Getty Family Papers, Getty Special Collections, Box 5, 2010.IA.17-03. 8 Getty Research Center, accessed on April 12, 2018, http://www.getty.edu/research/library/using/access/index.html.

94

The Getty Trust has contributed to the improvement of society through scholarship and research. The Getty Conservation Institute and the UCLA/Getty

Master’s Program on the Conservation of Ethnographic and Archeological Material work together to add another level legitimacy and identity. These programs are based in Los

Angeles, but attract scholars and students from all over the world. Since 1985 the Getty

Conservation Institute has worked on domestic and international projects that help preserve material culture from destruction. Their mission is to “advance conservation practice through research, education, applied field work, and the dissemination of knowledge.”9 The Institute’s work spans across the world from working with the Instituto

Nacional de Antropologİa e Historia in Mexico on the rock art of Baja California to one of their current projects working with the Modern and Contemporary Art Research

Initiative on the materials and processes used by Los Angeles-based artists in the 1950s.10

The Getty Conservation Institute’s work acknowledges the value of art, history, and culture that has advanced scholarship in Los Angeles and around the world.

When Getty chose to build a full scale replica of the Villa dei Papiri as his museum he inadvertently increased the scholarship around the Villa dei Papiri archeological site. Visibility and research of the Villa dei Papiri has increased in the ensuing decades since the opening of the Getty Villa. The scholarship that was utilized to design the Getty Villa was valued for the contribution it made to the research of the Villa dei Papiri archeological site. As discussed before the Villa dei Papiri has been an active archeological site since 1750, and yet it is still not fully excavated. The publicity that

9 Getty Conservation Institute, accessed on April 15, 2018, http://www.getty.edu/conservation/about/overview.html. 10 Ibid., current projects.

95 surrounded the Getty Villa brought the Villa dei Papiri back into the memory of people around the world. In the 1980’s when new excavations started at the Villa dei Papiri the majority of knowledge about the site was from the eighteenth century. Another issue was that most of the scholarship that had been conducted was on the art collection found at the villa and not on the building itself.11 The work of Mantha Zarmakoupi in her book

The Villa dei Papyri at Herculaneum, is a collection of essays about the Villa dei Papyri.

In it a variety of scholars that range from papyrologists examining the Greek Library to art historians studying the wall paintings of the Villa relate the most up to date research on the art collection and the villa. Zarmakoupi’s own research is a digital reconstruction of the Villa die Papyri. She used new archeological data from the site, and plans from the original 1750 excavations, which were also used to construct the Getty Villa. Zarmakoupi has expanded on that research with a combination of technology and the most recent research from a multitude of disciplines to create a more complete rendition of the Villa dei Papryri.12 Carol Mattusch who also contributed to Zarmakoupi’s book, has conducted the most extensive study of the art collection that was found at the Villa Dei Papiri.

Mattusch’s work examines the statues subject matter, which gives insight to the art collection as a whole, but also analyzes the chemical make-up of the bronze statues. This vital research brings to light where the statues came from, and reveals how statues were acquired. Mattusch’s research was in part funded by the Getty Research Institute, the J.

Paul Getty Museum and the Harvard University Art Museum among other institutions.13

11 Zarmakoupi, 1-2. 12 Zarmakooupi, 2010. 13 Mattusch, xii-xvi.

96

For all of the accomplishments that the J. Paul Getty Trust has made it has not been without controversy. There are some in the art and museum world that complain that because of the vast amounts of wealth that the Trust holds that there is too much power in the institution. The Getty can purchase anything they want and leave little behind for the smaller institutions. There were sex scandals in the 1990’s that threatened the reputation of the institution just as the new Getty Center was opening. Sexual harassment lawsuits that were reflective of a frat house atmosphere that had been tolerated for decades. One former employee said, “There was a hazy smoke of sex in the atmosphere, of staff members sleeping with each other.”14 Lawsuits and un-professional behavior all created a work environment that was fraught with tension, and did not help the reputation of The Getty within the museum community.

Unquestionably the most damaging of all were the accusations were that the

Museum purchased looted artifacts. The Getty had a voracious appetite for antiquities, and all the resources needed to make acquisition after acquisition. While J.P. Getty had tried to be as careful as possible when he acquired is personal ancient art collection, which is at times hard to believe. His museum was so flush with money that it became lax in the requirements of provenance for the pieces they bought. This jeopardized the legitimacy of the museum and of their programs such as UCLA/Getty Master’s Program on the Conservation of Ethnographic and Archeological Materials.

The scandals regarding the looted artifacts culminated in Getty curator Marion

True being brought to trial by the Italian government for conspiracy to traffic illicit antiquities. True was acquitted, but the damage was done, and The Getty Museum gave

14 Sharon Waxman, Loot, (New York, Times Books, 2008), 328.

97 back several antiquities. Museums purchasing illicit artifacts were not just restricted to the Getty. The Metropolitan Art Museum of New York and the Museum of Fine Arts in

Boston were both accused of purchasing looted antiquities, and had to return artifacts to

Italy.15 These museums have survived the scandals and as a result have become more transparent in their acquisitions.

The reputation of the Getty Villa has evolved from being lambasted as an amusement park, to a respected ancient art institution. When the Getty Center opened in

1997, the Getty Villa closed for extensive renovation and expansion. The Getty Villa re- opened in 2006 and at this time the institution had reached its full potential as a museum of ancient Greek and Roman art. In 1974 when the villa opened it held all of Getty’s art collection, including the Renaissance paintings and French furniture. At times it felt a bit strange having a collection of eighteenth century furniture inside a replica of an ancient

Roman villa. If the Getty Villa had opened to mass criticism in 1974, it was the opposite when it re-opened in 2006. It was heralded by critics, scholars and the public alike as a masterpiece. The building and the art collection worked synergistically to create an environment where the visitor can experience ancient Rome. The Villa’s old foe the Los

Angeles Times wrote that “the overall effect is one of tasteful refinement and restraint.”16

When the Getty Villa opened in 1974 the design was not sophisticated enough for critics, and said it was “a throwback, reactionary, and a rich man’s folly.”17 The Villa did not conform to the modern architecture that was en vogue at the time, now over thirty years

15 Hugh Eakin, “An Odyssey in Antiquities Ends in Questions at the Getty Museum”, October 15,2005, accessed on April 7, 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/15/arts/design/an-odyssey-in-antiquities- ends-in-questions-at-the-getty-museum.html. 16 Christopher Hawthorne, “A Felicitous Blend of Old and New”, Los Angeles Times, November 20, 2005, accessed on April 15, 2018, http://articles.latimes.com/2005/nov/20/local/me-getty20. 17 Zarmakoupi, 129.

98 later it was appreciated as a work of art. The Getty Villa has further elevated the intellectual identity of the people of Los Angeles, the West Coast, and the United States.

Currently, the Getty Villa is “America’s only museum devoted entirely to Greek,

Etruscan, and Roman art.”18

Museum buildings are often just as important as the collections they house. The

Getty Villa was so important architecturally that it is seen as integral to the museum; it simply would not be the same institution without the Villa, and the Getty Center is no different. The Getty Center and Research Institute were designed by the famed Architect

Richard Meier. When the Getty Center opened in 1997, it was not just a museum, as it

“borrowed an idea from universities and research centers: the museum as a campus. Not only does the 24-acre complex contain a research center and a state-of-the-art conservation institute, the museum itself is spread over several buildings.” The Getty

Trust has taken the idea of the museum and moved it into the twenty-first century, while not losing site of the past.19 The Getty Center has become a focal point of the culture and identity of Los Angeles, and is part of a movement that has increased the number of quality art institutions in LA. The Getty has added to the reputation of the city as not just a place where movies are made, but a place of serious scholarly research. Harold

Williams, a Getty Administrator, succinctly explains the value of museums when he wrote, “the artistic and cultural sector has tremendous strength and is positioned to take a primary role in building community…It’s crucial that we emphasize art and culture not

18 J. Paul Getty Trust, Guide to the Getty Villa, 25. 19 Marjorie Schwarzer, Riches, Rivals, Radicals:100 Years of Museums in America, (Washington D.C., American Association of Museums, 2006), 60.

99 only to foster appreciation of one another but, just as important, to open the door to a deeper understanding of one’s self.”20

Through examining J. Paul Getty for this thesis it became apparent that his art collecting was multi-faceted, and it is not easy to make generalizations about him.

Getty’s identity was wrapped up in the ancient world. It is partly for this reason that he became such an anglophile, as the British also felt such a strong connection the ancient world. It was in England that Getty attained his classical education, where he would buy an estate, and where he purchased some of the greatest ancient art pieces in his collection.

It was not by chance that Getty acquired ancient art from the British aristocracy, or that he would own an English estate that would fulfill the same psychological needs as a

Roman villa. For ancient art collectors there is a sort of lineage that comes with possessing the art. This was part of the motivation behind some of the pieces Getty acquired, he wanted the recognition and the connection to ancient art collectors back through time.

While the influence of Getty and his museums are distinct, how Greco-Roman art contributed to the intellectual development of the public can at times be subtle. In the

British Empire there were groups like the Society Dilettanti who promoted Greco-Roman culture through art, literature and architecture, and the influence was visible physically in the world around them. In the twentieth century wealthy Americans became benefactors to museums and displayed their collections, and the influence became a little subtler.

Part of J. Paul Getty’s mission was to make ancient art accessible to the public and advance individuals and society.

20 Carrier,179-180.

100

Getty was a complicated and imperfect man. By reassessing who he was as a collector the evidence changes the perception that he was a man who only collected art for financial gain. At times it is hard to reconcile his philanthropy with his turbulent public life. The easy thing to do is to be pessimistic about how Getty viewed the relationship between art and society, and to be dismissive of his motivation. Yet in the end Getty left a vast fortune that has been used for the public good. Yes, Getty felt that half of Americans were “cultural barbarians”, but he had hope that all people could be elevated through the appreciation of art.21 Getty should not be deified, and on many levels he was a contemptuous, egotistical, condescending man, but his philanthropy should not be dismissed either. Getty’s legacy has created a repository of knowledge for the public and has contributed to the changing intellectual landscape in Los Angeles through art and museums that has the ability to change how individuals view their intellectual identity.

21 Getty, As I See It, 287.

101

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Beard, Mary. The Roman Triumph. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2007.

Burgess, Anthony. Haskell, Francis. The Age of the Grand Tour. London: Paul Elek Productions, 1967.

Carrier, David. Museum Skepticism: A History of the Display of Art in Public Galleries. Durham and London: Duke University Press, 2006.

Dillon, Matthew. L and Garland, Lynda. Ancient Rome: Social and Historical Documents from the Early Republic to the Death of Augustus. London and New York: Routledge, 2005.

Dr. Norman Neuerburg Papers Regarding Getty Villa Design and Construction. Series I- V. Getty Research Institute. Special Collections. Los Angeles, California.

Getty, Jean Paul. The Joys of Collecting. Los Angeles: The J. Paul Getty Museum, 2011. First ed. New York, Hawthorne Books, 1965.

Getty, Jean Paul. As I See It: The Autobiography of J. Paul Getty. Los Angeles: The J. Paul Getty Museum, 2003. First ed. New York: Prentice-Hall, 1976.

Glueck Grace. “Getty Museum is a Hit With Visitors”. New York Times. January 20, 1974.

Hewins, Ralph. J. Paul Getty: The Richest American. London: Sidgwick and Jackson, 1961.

J. Paul Getty Diaries 1938-1976. Digital Collections. The Getty Foundation. Los Angeles, California.

J. Paul Getty Family Collected Papers. Boxes 1-15. Getty Research Institute. Special Collections. Los Angeles, California.

J. Paul Getty Trust, Guide to the Getty Villa. Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Museum, 2005.

J. Paul Getty Trust. The J. Paul Getty Museum: Handbook of the Antiquities Collection. Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Museum, 2010.

Jenkins, Tiffany. Keeping Their Marbles: How the Treasures of the Past Ended Up in Museums…and Why They Should Stay There. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016.

Levine, Lawrence W. Highbrow/Lowbrow: The Emergence of Cultural Hierarchy in America. Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press, 1988.

102

Levitt, Peggy. Artifacts and Allegiances: How Museums Put the Nation and the World On Display. Oakland: University of California Press, 2015.

Levkoff, Mary L. Hearst: The Collector. New York: Los Angeles County Museum of Art, 2008.

Lenzner, Robert. The Great Getty. New York Crown Publishers, Inc., 1985.

Livy. The Rise of Rome: Books 1-5. Translated by T.J. Luce. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1998.

Lubar, Robert. “The Odd Mr. Getty”. Fortune Magazine, March 17, 1986.

Mattusch, Carol C. The Villa Dei Papiri: Life and Afterlife of a Sculpture Collection. Los Angeles: Getty Publications, 2005.

Meyer, Karl E. The Plundered Past. New York, Antheneum, 1973.

Miller, Russel. House of Getty. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing, 1985.

Neuerburg, Dr. Norman. “The New J. Paul Getty Museum”, Archaeology Vol. 27, No. 3, July 1974, Archaeological Institute of America.

Parslow, Christopher Charles. Rediscovering Antiquity: Karl Weber and the Excavation of Herculaneum, Pompeii and Stabiae. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

Pastier John. “Architecture: What Getty Hath Wrought”. Los Angeles Times. January 28, 1974.

Pierre Bengtson, Werner Caskel, Philippe Derchan, Pierre Grimal,. Maurice Meuleau,. Morton Smith,. Hellenism and the Rise of Rome. Edited by Pierre Grimal. Translated by A.M. Sheridan Smith. New York: Delacorte Press, 1965.

Plutarch. The Fall of Rome. Translated by Rex Warner. London: Penguin Books, 2005.

Plutarch. The Rise of Rome. Translated by Ian Scott-Kilvert, Jefery Tatum, Christopher Pelling. London: Penguin Books, 2005.

Pollitt Jerome J. “The Impact of Greek Art on Rome”. Transactions of the American Philological Association (1974-)(1978): 155-74.

Polybius. Polybius the Histories, Vol III, 6, 15, 8. Loeb Classical Library, 1922-1927.

Ramage, Andrew and Ramage, Nancy H. Roman Art: Romulus to Constantine. Upper Sadle River: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2009.

103

Rheims, Maurice. The Strange Life of Objects: 35 Centuries of Art Collecting and Collectors. Translated by David Pryce-Jones. New York: Antheneum Publishers, 1961.

Saarinen, Aline B. The Proud Possessors: The Lives, Times and Tastes of Some Adventurous American Art Collectors. New York: Random House, 1958.

Seacrest, Meryle. Duveen: A Life in Art. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2004.

Swanberg, W.A. Citizen Hearst: A Biography of William Randolph Hearst. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1961.

Tebbel, John. The Life and Good Times of William Randolph Hearst. New York: E.P. Dutton & CO., Inc., 1952.

The Fogg Art Museum of Harvard University. Ancient Art in American Private Collections. Art Exhibit from December 28, 1954-February 15, 1955.

Thompson, Erin L. Possession: The Curious History of Private Collectors from Antiquity to the Present. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2016.

Schwarzer, Marjorie. Riches, Rivals and Radicals: 100 Years of Museums in America. Washington DC: American Association of Museums, 2006.

Stanic, Borislav. Museum Companion to Los Angeles. Beverly Hills: Museon Publishing, 1996.

Waxman, Sharon. Loot: The Battle Over the Stolen Treasures of the Ancient World. New York: Times Books, Henry Holt and Company, LLC, 2008.

Zarmakoupi, Mantha. The Villa of the Papyri at Herculaneum: Archaeology, Reception, and Digital Reconstruction. Sozomena. Berlin ; New York: De Gruyter, 2010.