I was disappointed with myself this week in class when I realized that it had never occurred to me that gender may have played a defining role in the legal consequences of the Getty’s Aphrodite scandal. In reading Jason Felch and Ralph Frammolino’s Chasing Aphrodite: the Hunt for Looted Antiquities at the World’s Richest Museum, I had merely accepted their sensationalized portrayal of Marion True as fact. In reading their account of the Getty’s acquisition practices, I realize that it is crucial to keep in mind that sensationalization is what sells. I found this very telling description of the people involved with the Getty from the online summary page of the blog that Felch and Frammolino maintain for their project: “The outlandish characters and bad behavior could come straight from the pages of a thriller—the wealthy recluse founder, the cagey Italian art investigator, the playboy curator, the narcissist CEO.” Forcing real people into character roles from a “thriller” seems to be more of a ploy to generate publicity and spark public interest, and only functions to convolute the reality of the events in question. Just look at the paradoxical and misleading description here of Marion True as the “playboy curator.” Describing one of the first high-profile female curators as a “playboy” is inherently misrepresentative of one of the most basic aspects of her identity and only serves to completely dismiss any notions in the reader’s mind of the role that gender may have played in this case.
Engaging only in Felch and Frammolino’s account was not enough. I wanted to hear Marion True’s side as well, in order to get a better sense of what had really happened and why she in particular was singled out in such a public manner for a global audience. In 2007, Paolo Giorgio Ferri, the state prosecutor in True’s case told The New Yorker, “It will not be an acquittal. There’s no reason to go on in the outrage against Marion True. The more the trial goes on, the more outrage. It’s better to reach a judgment.” A 2010 interview with The New Yorker was particularly enlightening in considering aspects of the case not explored adequately by Felch and Frammolino:
Has the Getty made any effort to reconcile with you?
No. And I have nothing but the greatest contempt for them in the world. They acted like I ran the place. Above me I had a chief curator who was deputy director, a director, an in-house counsel, a president, a board of trustees to whom the president reported, and a chairman of the board. What about the lawyers who drafted the acquisition policy, who were supposed to be vetting all documents? They were perfectly happy to assure all that [the alleged acquisition of illegal art] was my work. Never once have [former Getty director] John Walsh or [his successor] Deborah Gribbon stepped forward to say one word about their responsibility.
Regardless of the morality or legality of True and the rest of the Getty’s actions, it is important in our more recent conceptualization of them that we remember the danger of a single story. Not only is it dangerous in holding those involved appropriately accountable, but also in representing the past. We should strive to represent the past as truthfully as possible while we still have agency over the narrative so we do not allow the same mistakes of history to repeat themselves.
References:
Eakin, H. (2010, October 14). Marion True on her Trial and Ordeal. The New Yorker. Retrieved November 30, 2018, from https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/marion-true-on-her-trial-and-ordeal
Ancient Greek Art and Archaeology 
Hi Bryn,
Thank you for your discussion on the case of Marion True. I found the points you made to be extremely valuable and they certainly extend beyond the realm of the Getty and greek art and archeology. I agree that sensationalization is what sells and it is dangerous because it prevents a critical lens of the entire multisided story. I think especially in the case of Marion True, the spectacle surrounding the case has led to the silencing of her reasoning and of others who played an equal role in the whole affair. Certainly putting the face of a woman as the head of the scandals made both attack easier and pinning the whole scenario on a singular figure. Of course a story is always more complex than this.
Rachel
LikeLike
I also started off fully accepting the book’s depiction of the Aphrodite statue scandal. It wasn’t until the class’s discussion on True’s role that I realized that the Getty made her the scapegoat for all of this. I remember from one of the chapters that Walsh wrote to Monreal saying that the Getty trustees and other high-up people of the Getty were fully aware of the illicit origins of many artifacts. None of them were willing to perform an in-depth investigation into the cult statue’s origins. Instead, they created a procedure for taking in artifacts that left the work of questioning an artifact’s origins to others. They already had no problem distancing themselves as much as they could from things that might make the Getty look bad. It was also suspicious how the Getty offered no help to True while she was on trial in Italy. So I find it easy to believe that the Getty pushed all the blame onto True, and the narration in Chasing Aphrodite helped us believe their illusion that it was all True’s fault.
LikeLike
Dear Bryn,
The case of Marion True was something that also bothered me as I read it in class. While I like how you approached this topic through the lense of sexism, I was upset that an individual was targeted over an institution. While it may be more difficult to try a museum for the illegal acquisition of an artifact, it seems wrong that the majority of the blame fell onto the shoulders of Marion True. If anything, Italy should have gone after the Getty Museum because it would have set a precedent for future cases. Picking out individuals can only do so much, and at some point the art world needs to get to the heart of the problem and target the institutions that create this culture.
LikeLike
Hi Bryn
Had to admit, I also completely neglected the power dynamic between the two sexes that may be at work in this incident. I think more generally, we may need to consider the power dynamic between an employee and the company. To stay in the company, one has to do whatever one’s boss orders. Sometimes the order is bad, and sometimes the order is short-sighted. Nonetheless, when the problem comes, it’s often the people on the very top that run first, leaving everyone else behind. From this point of view, it seems that True was also a victim. What’s especially weird to me about this case is that based on the book we read, it seems that there is enough evidence to suggest that it wasn’t True’s own doing but the entire museum was responsible. I wonder why the police didn’t go for the entire museum instead.
Mike Shi
LikeLike