Getty Layoffs - Museum Professional Forums, News, Jobs, Articles, Books

James Lansing · 05-14-2008, 03:23 PM

The Getty has announced that they may (which means will) begin layoffs and staff reducations in the near future. Are they serious? That an organization that has well over 6 BILLION in assets is going to lay off employees making mere change in comparison is a crime. And before anyone hits me with the old line that their funds are tied up in providing education, exhibitions etc, The Getty like all museums should take care of those who take care of it. These layoffs are a crime, period. How about if the director takes a cut? or if they sell off some of their vast holdings (hordings)? When are people and families going to be more important than things?

Museumgirl · 05-16-2008, 02:06 AM

I think James is referring to this article

http://www.fortmilltimes.com/124/story/162960.html

Does anyone know anything else about this?

How do you feel about it?

curator · 05-16-2008, 05:20 PM

here's a snippet from that article:

"...eliminate 114 jobs and cut programs to boost funding for the organization's core arts mission, a spokesman said Tuesday.

"The whole goal here is to focus the Getty on the core mission of the visual arts," James Wood, chief executive of the Trust, told the Los Angeles Times.

So it sounds like the Getty is "reorganizing" or "restructuring" and therefore wants to eliminate the specialists who may be unrelated to the new "core" mission as aluded to by James Wood. This happens in big museums that have many, many specialists. Now if they would have hired generalists those folks could possibly transition into new jobs related to the new mission. So, it pays to keep all talents and skills honed when working for large museums. The Henry Ford (Museum) had to do this but they are much smaller than the Getty and had real funding issues.

I wonder if Getty's endowments are not doing very well right now and that also impacts their bottom line... Who knows.

I am just being the arm-chair ponderer... so if anyone in S.Calif. has some real knowledge about this, it would be helpful to hear from you.

James Lansing · 05-17-2008, 12:45 PM

The key here being that they had "REAL" funding issues. Maybe they are letting go of just specialists, but when friends of mine have been let go by the Newark Museum, MOMA, and The Met due to funding issues, then there is a deeper problem in the museum world.

QUOTE=curator;612]here's a snippet from that article:

"...eliminate 114 jobs and cut programs to boost funding for the organization's core arts mission, a spokesman said Tuesday.

"The whole goal here is to focus the Getty on the core mission of the visual arts," James Wood, chief executive of the Trust, told the Los Angeles Times.

So it sounds like the Getty is "reorganizing" or "restructuring" and therefore wants to eliminate the specialists who may be unrelated to the new "core" mission as aluded to by James Wood. This happens in big museums that have many, many specialists. Now if they would have hired generalists those folks could possibly transition into new jobs related to the new mission. So, it pays to keep all talents and skills honed when working for large museums. The Henry Ford (Museum) had to do this but they are much smaller than the Getty and had real funding issues.

I wonder if Getty's endowments are not doing very well right now and that also impacts their bottom line... Who knows.

I am just being the arm-chair ponderer... so if anyone in S.Calif. has some real knowledge about this, it would be helpful to hear from you.[/quote]

curator · 05-19-2008, 05:22 PM

Hello again James, I'm amazed by your comment about "things being more important.."
Isn't that the core of museums--to collect and preserve "things" especially items deemed significant to the culture? Maybe the crux of your concern is not "things" but the imbalance of staffing large museum organizations--leaning away from academic research/preservation purposes and now toward capturing money and controlling visitors. Activities surrounding making money (short term goals) often conflict with collections stewardship (long term goals) in many cases. This is an interesting topic and I'm glad you wrote in. Thanks!

05-14-2008, 03:23 PM	#1 (permalink)
James Lansing New Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 5	Getty Layoffs The Getty has announced that they may (which means will) begin layoffs and staff reducations in the near future. Are they serious? That an organization that has well over 6 BILLION in assets is going to lay off employees making mere change in comparison is a crime. And before anyone hits me with the old line that their funds are tied up in providing education, exhibitions etc, The Getty like all museums should take care of those who take care of it. These layoffs are a crime, period. How about if the director takes a cut? or if they sell off some of their vast holdings (hordings)? When are people and families going to be more important than things?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

05-16-2008, 02:06 AM	#2 (permalink)
Museumgirl Member Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 44	I think James is referring to this article http://www.fortmilltimes.com/124/story/162960.html Does anyone know anything else about this? How do you feel about it?

05-16-2008, 05:20 PM	#3 (permalink)
curator New Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 3	here's a snippet from that article: "...eliminate 114 jobs and cut programs to boost funding for the organization's core arts mission, a spokesman said Tuesday. "The whole goal here is to focus the Getty on the core mission of the visual arts," James Wood, chief executive of the Trust, told the Los Angeles Times. So it sounds like the Getty is "reorganizing" or "restructuring" and therefore wants to eliminate the specialists who may be unrelated to the new "core" mission as aluded to by James Wood. This happens in big museums that have many, many specialists. Now if they would have hired generalists those folks could possibly transition into new jobs related to the new mission. So, it pays to keep all talents and skills honed when working for large museums. The Henry Ford (Museum) had to do this but they are much smaller than the Getty and had real funding issues. I wonder if Getty's endowments are not doing very well right now and that also impacts their bottom line... Who knows. I am just being the arm-chair ponderer... so if anyone in S.Calif. has some real knowledge about this, it would be helpful to hear from you.

05-17-2008, 12:45 PM	#4 (permalink)
James Lansing New Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 5	The key here being that they had "REAL" funding issues. Maybe they are letting go of just specialists, but when friends of mine have been let go by the Newark Museum, MOMA, and The Met due to funding issues, then there is a deeper problem in the museum world. QUOTE=curator;612]here's a snippet from that article: "...eliminate 114 jobs and cut programs to boost funding for the organization's core arts mission, a spokesman said Tuesday. "The whole goal here is to focus the Getty on the core mission of the visual arts," James Wood, chief executive of the Trust, told the Los Angeles Times. So it sounds like the Getty is "reorganizing" or "restructuring" and therefore wants to eliminate the specialists who may be unrelated to the new "core" mission as aluded to by James Wood. This happens in big museums that have many, many specialists. Now if they would have hired generalists those folks could possibly transition into new jobs related to the new mission. So, it pays to keep all talents and skills honed when working for large museums. The Henry Ford (Museum) had to do this but they are much smaller than the Getty and had real funding issues. I wonder if Getty's endowments are not doing very well right now and that also impacts their bottom line... Who knows. I am just being the arm-chair ponderer... so if anyone in S.Calif. has some real knowledge about this, it would be helpful to hear from you.[/quote]

05-19-2008, 05:22 PM	#5 (permalink)
curator New Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 3	Hello again James, I'm amazed by your comment about "things being more important.." Isn't that the core of museums--to collect and preserve "things" especially items deemed significant to the culture? Maybe the crux of your concern is not "things" but the imbalance of staffing large museum organizations--leaning away from academic research/preservation purposes and now toward capturing money and controlling visitors. Activities surrounding making money (short term goals) often conflict with collections stewardship (long term goals) in many cases. This is an interesting topic and I'm glad you wrote in. Thanks!