# "Louvre in the sands"



## Seana

I bring up this subject for our world cultural discission because I can see it as a very 'on topic here.
Today I read about plans of [FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]opening a satellite branch of Paris' [FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]famed Louvre Museum and lending artwork [FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]for this 'clone' on a temporary to a resort in the oil-rich Abu Dhabi for profit.[/FONT]
[/FONT]source by JIM KRANE Associated Press Writer [/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Do you see this as such a controversial proposal?[/FONT][/FONT]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Is it really truth that French museums could be selling their souls by lending too many works to museums abroad?
[/FONT]
Should Louvre Museums be for sale by turning France's rich artistic heritage into a commercial brand?
Don't you see all these artwork there as world artistic heritage belonging to the whole world?


----------



## Thomsen

Culture should always be shared.  I don't think for example that museums should return all the items taken from Italy, Greece, Egypt etc by what were essentially treasure hunters in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries.  Some of them would have been lost for all antiquity.  I don't think knowledge is advanced by greedily holding onto items by calling them national patrimony.  And if money needs to change hands to pay for it and make it happen, is that wrong either?  I don't think so.


----------



## Westerner

I personally don't like the ideas of most museums anyway. As Thomas noted, our history belongs to all of us. The practices of a great many modern museums - hoarding historical artifacts while charging extortionist rates for the "priveledge" of seeing their treasures (nevermind photographing them, which most museums stopped allowing years ago) is a microcosm of the greed that plagues modern life. If you ask me, most museums sold their souls - to money - long ago.


----------



## maxiogee

Provided that there can be cast-iron guarantees about the physical safety of the exhibits when they are in transit and the security measures in the places of exhibition, then I'm all in favour of art travelling the museums of the world.
What I'm not happy with is the concept that one should have to pay to view works which are in the public domain - i.e. is owned by a nation. Museums are free to enter in Ireland. I would not like to think I had to pay to get in to a travelling exhibit from a foreign country. Enough works of art have been removed from public view when items have been sold to private collectors. I worry about the appeal to a museum like the Louvre of finances raised in this manner.
What is to stop them from circulating these exhibits to such an extent that the average French citizen cannot get to see them? Could it be that they might spend four months of the year in Abu Dhabi, another four in some other place and only two or three (allowing for transit time) on display in France?
Would French citizens who cannot get to Paris have a valid objection if they claimed that perhaps these works ought to circulate through major non-Parisian cities before being allowed to leave the country?


----------



## ireney

I don't see why loaning works of art to another museum, which is already an established practise, should be considered wrong by default. What I don't understand is what this special relation between Louvre and the other museums would be.

I'm not sure why it will be considered "selling the museum's soul" either until I know more of the matter.

Works of art should NOT be for sale if that sale  is going to mean that they will end up in a private collection, inaccessible to the public, if the seller is a museum and not a private institution or citizen.


----------



## distille

Seana said:


> I bring up this subject for our world cultural discission because I can see it as a very 'on topic here.
> Today I read about plans of [FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]opening a satellite branch of Paris' [FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]famed Louvre Museum and lending artwork [FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]for this 'clone' on a temporary to a resort in the oil-rich Abu Dhabi for profit.[/FONT]
> [/FONT]source by JIM KRANE Associated Press Writer [/FONT]
> 
> [FONT=Verdana, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Do you see this as such a controversial proposal?[/FONT][/FONT]
> [/FONT]
> [FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Is it really truth that French museums could be selling their souls by lending too many works to museums abroad?
> [/FONT]
> Should Louvre Museums be for sale by turning France's rich artistic heritage into a commercial brand?
> Don't you see all these artwork there as world artistic heritage belonging to the whole world?




I think it is quite a good idea since culture is made to be shared. I guess for the Louvre it's also a financial opportunity. French museums have difficulties to keep their accounts balanced. I don't think it will prevent pieces of art to be also presented in other non parisian French museums. This is already quite often done. Perhaps it will also help this future museum to buy pieces of art that will in turn visit Europe.
Plus, I tend to think the ministry of culture will make a deal that ensure that the pieces of art are well taken care of. Most museums cannot exhibit all their collection, so it's better to make them circulate than to keep them in a storage place.

But...I have a little ideological problem with this future emirate museum: there will be no painting with naked bodies....I really don't see how one could understand European art history without seeing nudes paintings. I assimilate that to censorship.

I once saw in Berlin an exhibition from the NY museum of modern art, I loved it and since I have never been to NY, if museums had not shared their treasures I would not have had this opportunity.


----------



## TRG

Perhaps the proposal would be better received if it were to be in London or Bonn. I mean, granting a branch of the Louvre to a bunch of oil sheiks does seem a bit tacky, doesn't it?

Ireney, I should have used one of these  . I'm making fun of the complainers here.


----------



## ireney

I for one am happy that this "bunch of oil sheiks" wants to spend a huge amount of money for cultural reasons and I find nothing "tacky" about it. Why "tacky"? Just because they are not "old money"?


----------



## ElaineG

ireney said:


> I for one am happy that this "bunch of oil sheiks" wants to spend a huge amount of money for cultural reasons and I find nothing "tacky" about it. Why "tacky"? Just because they are not "old money"?


 
Plus it makes great sense to me for several reasons (the Guggenheim Museum (originally of New York, now also of Venice, Bilbao, Las Vegas, Berlin.. I'm probably missing a couple!) is also opening a branch in the United Arab Emirates so this has been on the table for a while here):

1) Museums need dollars (or euros or bolivars or yen or whatever) to survive. Even though many NY museums now have a suggested or required admission fee of close to $20, admissions do not come close to covering the costs of acquisitions, restoration and maintenance, research, real estate, etc. etc. Museums depend on donations -- large donations -- to survive and continue their mission. So, it makes sense that the Guggenheim and the Louvre are going where "the money is."

2) That's hardly a break from history. The Venus di Milo and the Mona Lisa ended up in Paris not because it's a nice place for art but because it was a center of political and financial power. Ditto the Rosetta Stone and Elgin Marbles in London, and the extraordinary collections of everything from Egyptian art to French Impressionism to Russian Constructivism to Italian Futurism to African tribal pieces that I can see within a 2 mile radius of my office building here in Manhattan. 

3) There's a lot of talk these days about "inter-cultural dialogue" with the Islamic world. Well, what's a better way to foster "inter-cultural dialogue" than sharing artistic treasures. Far more likely to make friends that way than with bombs...


----------



## ireney

distille said:


> But...I have a little ideological problem with this future emirate museum: there will be no painting with naked bodies....I really don't see how one could understand European art history without seeing nudes paintings. I assimilate that to censorship.



Ummm where did you get that information? Just curious.


----------



## ElaineG

Ireney, I don't know about the Louvre/UAE, but I do know that it has been reported (without confirmation as far as I know) that the Guggenheim branch there has decided not to display any nudes:



> _But a Guggenheim source has gone further, saying there will be no nudes or works with a religious theme. Krens says the touchy topic hasn't yet been discussed. _


 
http://advant.blogspot.com/2006/07/guggenheim-abu-dhabi-no-nudes.html


----------



## Papalote

Hi, everyone,

Here is a link that explains, in French, what the agreement between the museums in France and Abu Dhabi is all about.

http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0,36-853826,0.html

From what I have read, and here is another link

http://www.lemonde.fr/web/recherche...ery=Le+Louvre&periode=30&sur=LEMONDE&x=10&y=7

most critics do not accept the fact that it is not only the Louvre who is concerned but all museums in Paris, and eventually in all France. There are several types of loans, some for 2 to 4 months, some (about 300 per year during a 10-year period) for up to 10 years in the permanent loan clause. The name Louvre can be used up to 20 years when another name will have to be chosen. What is the scariest is that it´s the most important paintings that are leaving France. Also, there is a clause where Abu Dhabi can reject some paintings offered for reasons of religion and nudity. Talk about censorhip! This also bothers the critics.

One article points out that Abu Dhabi is not the only place where France is loaning French Museum names, like the Rodin in Shangai, or the loan of masterpieces to other cities world-wide, the lates in Atlanta, USA, for commercial purposes.

Although I agree that art is humanity´s treasure, I am a little leery about travelling to France and being presented with only minor works of art. It will be a whole generation of French students who will not be able to enjoy their cultural heritage.

I perfectly understand the feelings of the French people who are against this project. There are too many liabilities and dangers in constantly transporting such artwork across continents for such long periods of time.

Perhaps that oil-rich country, instead of giving so many millions of euros for a 20-year contract, should´ve bought airplanes and hotels in France and taken their people on trips there. It seems to me a much more interesting adventure for the students, and adults alike, to travel and visit the museums in situ.

At least now, if the money is well spent, French museums will be renovated .... which is what the Louvre director says he will do.

Hasta +,

Papalote


----------



## distille

ireney said:


> Ummm where did you get that information? Just curious.



On a French radio (france inter) when they interviewed the director of the Orsay museum about the Louvre project.
I believed it, but I have not checked this info.


----------



## Thomsen

Papalote said:


> Perhaps that oil-rich country, instead of giving so many millions of euros for a 20-year contract, should´ve bought airplanes and hotels in France and taken their people on trips there. It seems to me a much more interesting adventure for the students, and adults alike, to travel and visit the museums in situ.


 
Or maybe they just shouldn't care about French art and culture?  I've never heard anyone complaining about artworks being sent to the USA.  I for one am certainly glad they are though as I can't really afford a flight to Paris at the moment.


----------



## ElaineG

> It will be a whole generation of French students who will not be able to enjoy their cultural heritage.


 
As I mentioned before, it's a bit odd to think of the things (mummies, the Mona Lisa, the Venus de Milo, a huge, beautiful collection of Islamic arts - from, as the Louvre, boasts "3 continents") in the Louvre as only, or mostly, or even largely "the French cultural heritage." Think of all the Greeks who have grown up without "their" cultural heritage. Or Egyptians. 

Indeed, the article you quote states that:



> Il s'agit d'un "musée universel présentant des objets majeurs dans les domaines de l'archéologie, des beaux-arts et des arts décoratifs, ouvert à toutes les périodes, y compris le contemporain, à toutes les aires géographiques et tous les domaines de l'histoire de l'art, répondant aux critères de qualité et à l'ambition scientifique et muséographique du Musée du Louvre et destiné à oeuvrer au dialogue entre l'Orient et l'Occident".


 
For those who don't read French, the contract calls for the establishment of a "universal museum ... open to all periods, _and all geographic areas"._



> Also, there is a clause where Abu Dhabi can reject some paintings offered for reasons of religion and nudity. Talk about censorhip!


 
Perhaps no exhibit is ever "censored" out of deference to cultural sensibilities in France, but here in the United States, that is not so uncommon. Even here in New York, the bastion of all things liberal and multicultural, extensive protests and controversy were created by the 1999 display at the Brooklyn Museum of Art of a Virgin Mary depicted in a work made from elephant dung. It offended many people's sensibilities, and many people thought the government should not be subsidizing art that was so offensive to so many. 

I don't think the government of the UAE has the obligation to subsidize works that they view as contrary to their religion. They're not saying those works can't be shown (guess Paris will keep the Venus di Milo), just that those works can't be shown in their house on their dime.

Fair enough to me.


----------



## distille

ElaineG said:


> Perhaps no exhibit is ever "censored" out of deference to cultural sensibilities in France, but here in the United States, that is not so uncommon. Even here in New York, the bastion of all things liberal and multicultural, extensive protests and controversy were created by the 1999 display at the Brooklyn Museum of Art of a Virgin Mary depicted in a work made from elephant dung. It offended many people's sensibilities, and many people thought the government should not be subsidizing art that was so offensive to so many.
> 
> I don't think the government of the UAE has the obligation to subsidize works that they view as contrary to their religion. They're not saying those works can't be shown (guess Paris will keep the Venus di Milo), just that those works can't be shown in their house on their dime.
> 
> Fair enough to me.



Obviously you're quite right, but I wonder how one can make a coherent exhibition of European art by avoiding nude paintings, and I'm not talking about contemporary art. And of course, the Louvre has much more to share than only European art.
In the NY example you talk about, at least there was some room for protest and debates. Of course, my judgement is biased by an "occidental" view on things.
However, I support the project for cultural, economical and political reasons.


----------



## Thomsen

distille said:


> Obviously you're quite right, but I wonder how one can make a coherent exhibition of European art by avoiding nude paintings, and I'm not talking about contemporary art.  And of course, the Louvre has much more to share than only European art.
> In the NY example you talk about, at least there was some room for protest and debates.  Of course, my judgement is biased by an "occidental" view on things.
> However, I support the project for cultural, economical and political reasons.


 
D'accord.  But I don't think there was so much room for protest in NYC as a sweeping wave of criticism after the fact.  It only happened in the first place because people didn't find out about it until later.


----------



## Etcetera

ireney said:


> I don't see why loaning works of art to another museum, which is already an established practise, should be considered wrong by default. What I don't understand is what this special relation between Louvre and the other museums would be.
> 
> I'm not sure why it will be considered "selling the museum's soul" either until I know more of the matter.
> 
> Works of art should NOT be for sale if that sale  is going to mean that they will end up in a private collection, inaccessible to the public, if the seller is a museum and not a private institution or citizen.


Can I sign my name under these words, Irene?
It's quite an established practice. On temporary exhibition in the Hermitage the visitor can see works not only from the Hermitage itself, but from other museums as well. I remember seeing works from the Hermatige's collection on temporary exhibitions in Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts in Moscow. 
I can't see anything wrong in Louvre lending its treasures to other museums. They will return to Louevre, won't they? And they will bring with them money.


----------



## la reine victoria

I'm completely in favour of museums and art galleries lending parts of their collections to other countries.

I remember the generosity of Egypt when the treasures of Tutankhamun, including the mummified king, were loaned to the British Museum. There were long queues there every day.

Our major English galleries frequently loan works of art to other countries. As does HM the Queen.

If money changes hands, all well and good. Museums and art galleries cost a great deal to maintain, and artefacts and works of art often need cleaning and/or restoration, behind the scenes. Some restoration work can take months, and the fees asked by restorers are very high.

We don't have to pay to enter museums and galleries in England so they now have to find other ways of financing themselves.

The great cathedrals and churches here are struggling for money to keep them in good repair. To obtain funds they are having to charge entrance fees. I recently saw a TV programme on Canterbury Cathedral, founded in 597 by St. Augustine. I believe the present building is over 1000 years old. It is literally falling to bits and 50 million pounds are needed to refurbish it.

Hope I haven't drifted off topic. I mention this to let any forer@s, who might be annoyed at having to pay to enter our cathedrals, know the reason why.

LRV


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Most of the stuff they have is probably robbed anyway.


----------



## la reine victoria

Pedro y La Torre said:


> Most of the stuff they have is probably robbed anyway.


 
That's rather a sweeping statement, Pedro.  Art galleries and museums pay large sums of money for their acquisitions.  They also benefit from gifts bequeathed to them in people's wills.  

LRV


----------



## ireney

Elaine, Papalote, thank you for the links 

I couldn't see any think that said in a direct manner that no nudes would be displayed (I'm talking about the agreement with Louvre) but then my French is not so good to say the least. 

I do agree that taking the nude out of the picture will not give the visitors of the Museum a comprehensive insight on European art . However

a) I think there are enough works that will not jar Muslim sensitivities to give the visitors a good idea. After becoming interested in the European art I think anyone interested can research on the matter a bit further.

b) I personally am against banning a work because it may be against some person's sensitivities. At most, if the work would be considered insulting by the majority, it should be put in a separate room with a little bit of warning.

Most people here protested when “Asperges Me” by Thierry de Cordier was removed from an exhibition in Athens in 2003. The same happened for the removal of a photo by Thanasis Totsikas which showed a man and a watermelon in an intimate moment. I will refrain from posting my personal opinion about both  but my moral sensitivities were not really offended from these. However they should have been put in a separate place if you ask me.

Why did I mentioned it? Because the reason for removing “Asperges Me” was that it jarred the Christian sensibilities of such; at least that's what they said


----------



## Seana

Today I have looked through the petition against the commercial drifts of the Louvre initiated by Internet and entitled Les musées ne sont pas à vendre . Friday January there were 2804 signatures. As far as my French allows me catch the point I could see these 'grumpy' persons are really made indignant by this information.
Did you even hear about similar case when hire artworks by other world museums had been the subject of such a polemic.
When I was visiting the Louvre last summer I had just seen it as an impressive almost great cultural Mecca. Once I read something like this 'If you can see only one museum in Europe, the Louvre should be it. The Mona Lisa and The Venus de Milo alone are enough reasons.'
But I also realize of high costs of all these specialist work and the enormous efforts of employed about forty different professions people.  As you can see the museum is seeking for the solution to acquire money. Various cultural accompanying events are organised there : conferences, concerts, projections of films, temporary exhibitions, fashion shows. But perhaps it couldn't be enough. 



			
				la reine victoria said:
			
		

> We don't have to pay to enter museums and galleries in England so they now have to find other ways of financing themselves


It is amazing.

By the way it is bit off topic but I am very curious what do you think about the pyramid of glass. I see it as little bit controversial.


----------

