The real Irises?

November 13, 2013 9:08 PM

Was it really the real Irises, for reals?

We visited the Getty Center museum today, and were blown away by all the wonderful artworks. We spent quite some time admiring Van Gogh's Irises in particular. There were no barriers between this painting and the public. One docent was stationed in the general area. Only a thin pane of glass(?) separated this masterpiece from the unwashed masses. Other notable paintings had no protective glass at all.

Google tells me that Irises would be valued north of $50 million dollars.

So my question is: That could not have been the "real" Irises, right? Do museums display reproductions of super-expensive artwork without telling the public?

posted by shino-boy to Media & Arts (9 answers total)

An earnest question: What do you think is the purpose of the museum? Extremely high quality reproductions could be displayed to the public for a miniscule fraction of what it costs to acquire the originals. So what is the point of having the originals at all? Typically paintings are physically protected when they are subject to extreme risk from ordinary environmental factors, like the Lascaux cave paintings, which have been replicated because the mere presence of breathing humans was causing them to deteriorate.

The Mona Lisa, which has been stolen and subjected to an acid attack, is behind glass, but it is probably the single most valuable painting in the world. Otherwise, painting is a visual medium, and people come to see them without anything in the way. It's as glorious as it is improbable.
posted by wnissen at 9:20 PM on November 13, 2013 [7 favorites]

It's the real Irises. Many famous paintings are not protected behind glass, even priceless ones.
posted by empath at 9:20 PM on November 13, 2013 [2 favorites]

Best answer: It's the real Irises. Museums aren't in the business of deceiving. The mission is to show real work.

What might make you feel better is the complete certainty that you were covered 10 ways to Sunday by security cameras, there are doubtless several layers of protection on the artwork, the frame is most certainly bolted to the wall and alarmed, etc. Museums have very complex security schemes, but they are designed (by smart and expensive consultants) to be relatively invisible so as not to interfere with your experience.
posted by Miko at 9:34 PM on November 13, 2013 [5 favorites]

Oh, regarding glass - it's not always a great idea and the trend now is not to glaze. Glass gets a glare on it that drives serious art viewers crazy. It gets dirty/dusty and needs to be wiped, which occasions more handling of the work, which is a risk factor. And it reduces immediacy and you can longer see the detail of the surface the artist created. So, unless the lender/owner/insurer requires it or there's some other extenuating issue like it's a historic frame and mount and it would be a bad idea to dislodge it, the preference these days is not to glaze.
posted by Miko at 9:38 PM on November 13, 2013 [3 favorites]

Best answer: Yes, it's the real work of art. In addition to security technology that you couldn't see, the docent you saw was probably a highly trained guard. A few articles on these interesting people here, here and here (the last one about security guards at LA museums including the Getty) that might interest you and further prove it's the real art!
posted by beanie at 11:23 PM on November 13, 2013 [6 favorites]

It probably is. You should go to the French Impressionist room at the Art Institute of Chicago. Hundreds of millions on the wall.
posted by Ironmouth at 6:03 AM on November 14, 2013 [1 favorite]

Those were great articles, beanie. The guards where I work are about 50% retired police or other public safety/service professionals.
posted by Miko at 6:11 AM on November 14, 2013

I work in security and this is a VERY common question.

Yes, the works of art on display are real.

And yes, knowing the value of some of them gives me the howling fantods.


Oh, regarding glass - it's not always a great idea and the trend now is not to glaze.

That depends - the advent of glare resistant glass means that some works that weren't previously glazed can be glazed now. Other factors might prevent glazing, such as the size or condition of the piece but more vulnerable works are being glazed now.



the docent you saw was probably a highly trained guard.

Docents and guards are different. Docents are tour guides, usually volunteers. They have training, but it's more oriented toward leading tours.



Security guards are paid museum employees and have different training that is more oriented toward protecting the artwork and the safety of the public, up to and including first aid and self defense training - depending on how much that particular institution invests in them.
posted by louche mustachio at 7:16 AM on November 14, 2013

That depends. Some museums have combination guards/docents - for instance, this model is in use at Boston's ICA. They are paid and work on station, not on tour.
posted by Miko at 11:30 AM on November 15, 2013