January 8, 2007
The selling of the Louvre
The deal with Atlanta seemed bad enough, but now there are plans for a "Louvre of the Sands" satellite operation in Abu Dhabi, along with a Pompidou satellite in China -- as the Times of London reports:
Leading figures from the French art world have accused the Louvre of cultural prostitution for signing a multimillion-pound deal to exhibit works in Atlanta and negotiating a second deal to build a branch of the museum in Abu Dhabi.Critics say that the Louvre is being turned into a vulgar brand name to fill state coffers.
The row pits purists, who believe that art must stand high above politics or business, against modernisers, who say that globalisation requires a new approach to cultural values. In the latest salvo, senior curators and art critics have launched a petition denouncing the Government of President Chirac for authorising France’s museums to rent out their collections.
Posted by David on January 8, 2007 4:55 PM
I thought the Atlanta show was a travelling show. I'm driving from nashville when it shows with my family.
Not sure why it is bad.
Posted by: gunner on January 8, 2007 7:00 PM
I echo gunner's comment: Not sure why it is bad. The exhibit here in the U.S. will be my only chance to see the Louvre exhibits, since physical limitations prohibit me from ever returning to Paris. Why shouldn't the world's treasures be shared? Who "owns" art, I believe, holds it in trust for everyone else and for the future. (I'll get down off my high horse now.)
Posted by: Sarah
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.cronaca.com/nav-commenters.gif)
on January 9, 2007 11:11 AM
The opposition to the French government's recent policy change has little to do with art loans per se. What has created all the fuss is this: instead of deciding on whether an artwork should travel on the basis of risks vs benefits, the Chirac administration appears to be making loan decisions on the basis of how much money can be made -- and, to some extent, of how the loan might extend French influence abroad.
This is the exact opposite of holding art in trust for the world and for the future.
Posted by: David on January 9, 2007 1:09 PM
Though one could argue that it's using art exactly as it has usually been used by the Patron - to extend influence.
Posted by: Michael Tinkler on January 9, 2007 3:12 PM
cronaca.com