One of the most profound means of human communication is the visual arts. By establishing a meaningful dialogue between an artist’s vision of the world and our own perceptions, art can help us to understand ourselves more fully. Moreover, art at its finest gives us a deep sense of history, tradition, and the true potentialities of man’s creativity. In today’s world where often scientific development is regarded as the highest goal and where the individual frequently feels alienated from himself and those around him, the role of art becomes increasingly important in keeping open the lines of communication.

– Norton Simon, 1972

With over a week of Los Angeles under our belts, I am just starting to get to know this massive city. Over the course of this trip, we have traveled to four art museums, two performance venues, and half a dozen cultural hubs, each destination unique in its purpose and ambience. As I experience art in the latter half of the class, I ask myself the question “what belongs in art museums? And who gets to decide that?”

My name is Sam Thackston, and I’m a freshman studying biochemistry and music at Whitworth University.

The Norton Simon Museum

Seeing the museum for the first time as it rained incessantly, I decided immediately that the Norton Simon would be radically different from both the hilltop Getty museum and the urban Los Angeles County Museum of Art. From the outside, the Norton Simon, located in the more affluent Pasadena, felt cozier and less industrial. Instead of a sun-touched, sprawling campus, the singular building was dimly lit and comfortably small. Even if it were sunny outside, the interior would carry the same ‘protected from the outside world’ energy.

The Norton Simon Museum has a long and complicated history, which you can read about here. But in short, it began in 1941 as the Pasadena Art Institute, headquartered in a gallery in the Grace Nicholson Studios, where the Pacific Asia Museum is currently located. Over the next 30 years, it received various donations, and at one point converted to a modern art museum. In 1974, faced with bankruptcy, the trustees reached an agreement with Norton Simon, who bought and began managing what was renamed the Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena.

Norton Simon, an “entrepreneur, industrialist, [and] philanthropist,” [1]

felt strongly that art was key to fully understanding the human experience. After graduating from high school, Simon moved to Los Angeles and began his sheet metal distribution company and quickly climbed his way to the top of the business world. Amassing one of the greatest private collections in the world, he put his paintings on display at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art until purchasing his own center.[2]

Around Los Angeles, the Norton Simon Museum has a reputation for being the highest quality art institute in the area, which to me raised the question, what makes an art museum better or worse than the next? Is it the price of the paintings? Perhaps it is the way in which the paintings are presented, or the layout of the museum. I understand that curators carefully choose which paintings are part of an exhibit, but I find it hard to believe good curators are demonstrably “better” than great curators.

Honestly, I cannot come up with a reason as to why the Norton Simon is better than any other museum, even though I do believe that. The best I can do is to relate this all back to classical music. As a violinist, I consider myself fairly well-listened and qualified when it comes to judging classical music (much like Daniel, in his blog post about Watts Towers, the Getty Museum, and LACMA, I feel seriously inept in interpreting paintings). Even though both paintings and musical pieces are unique entities, they have similar properties.

In 1878 Pyotr Illich Tchaikovsky, one of my favorite romantic era composers, wrote one of the most expressive (and popular) violin concertos of all time. It sparkles with technical challenges and passionate melodies. I would compare him to Monet, who was born in the same year as Tchaikovsky. As someone who believes his musical taste is well developed, I understand some of the nuances of musical quality. However, someone with more experience would have even better taste. Conductors such as Gustavo Dudamel from the Los Angeles Philharmonic, or even Eckart Preu, the departing artistic director of the Spokane Symphony, know how to curate concerts. Similar to classical music, those with great taste and basic judgement could both decide which paintings are of a higher quality and how to present them. My theory is that the Norton Simon Museum is a result of a high quality art collection and skilled curators.

Experiencing Van Gogh’s The Mulberry Tree or Pissarro’s Landscape with Flock of Sheep, wandering through its somehow intimate yet large hallways and expansive lower floor, and enjoying the quiet energy of the building, the Norton Simon Museum really lived up to my expectations. Most importantly to me, it sparked a dialogue about what makes an art institution, whether it is an orchestra, art gallery, or a ballet troop, better or worse. Our rainy afternoon was well spent.

[1] https://www.nortonsimon.org/about/about-norton-simon/

[2] https://www.nortonsimon.org/art/detail/M.2006.1.D/