Getty Center

As a current guest scholar, I read your report on the Getty Center, “Pampered but Not Pleased” (July 15), with great interest. It struck me, however, that many of the criticisms leveled at the center are peripheral, the sort of stock responses periodically made against most public institutions. If potential scholars have problems with the concept of the Getty Center, they could always turn down an invitation. On the other hand, the subtext of the article seemed to be that academics were only productive if chained to their desks, which is not enlightening.

From my own experience of research centers in Europe, I think the Getty Center may be overly optimistic in structuring its scholarly intake around a given theme like “the metropolis.” For one thing, not all the best people for such a subject will be available at the same time; for another, people may be invited who have no obvious research purposes suitable to an extended stay here. Throwing the program open to public competition would arguably produce a more diverse and stimulating mix of personalities. The J. Paul Getty Museum already operates a guest scholar program along these lines by inviting curators and academics to submit a project for a three-month grant. The project is then approved by a committee before the scholar is officially designated. I have known many colleagues who have participated in the guest scholar program, and all have found the firsthand experience of Los Angeles, its museums and libraries, extremely beneficial. Long may it continue.

BRUCE BOUCHER

Los Angeles

* In response to the clever notion that the Getty Center for the History of Art is a think tank where nobody thinks, let me say that as a 1987-88 fellow in residence I made good use of my time there by completing two already begun books and laying the foundation for a third, and that the energy expended by the other scholars around me was equally as well spent.

The Getty does indeed provide support of scholarship at its most potent: fully backed and with no strings. It should revise its programs now and whenever there is a clear advantage--but certainly not at the whim of scholars who are so precious that they simply couldn’t stand another year of their own thoughts or feel bought because they are treated in the same manner that successful individuals in other professions are treated. Perhaps these colleagues of mine should insulate themselves even more from what the rest of the world deals with on a daily basis: the simple expectation that a professional either put up or shut up.

CONRAD RUDOLPH, Chair

Department of the History of Art

UC Riverside