Philippe de Montebello, in a Q&A published Saturday in Le Monde (which seemed far more candid than anything he’s recently done in the American press), minced no French words in deploring the Louvre’s art-for-megabucks deal (and, by implication, the Guggenheim’s deal) with Abu Dhabi.
Here‘s what the Metropolitan Museum’s French-born director told the Paris newspaper:
Q: The Louvre doesn’t hide its financial motives. How do you judge the operation being conducted at Abu Dhabi?
A: Even before the Abu Dhabi operation, I said that I was uneasy with the excessive commercialization of art and the risk that results when money drives us….We will always study propositions that are made to us. But these must respect the integrity of the artworks and their security….
Q: What results do you fear?
A: To let a picture leave at the risk of its deteriorating in a hot and humid climate, because there is a big contract at stake…Or to use collections as capital that can be negotiated. Let’s be precise: We are displaying our Impressionist masterpieces in Berlin [closed Oct. 7], which is giving us, in exchange, a financial return. But our Impressionist rooms are closed for renovation….In addition, the sum being paid covers our scientific work as the organizer of the exhibition….
Loans must remain free.We understand that certain developing countries require money. But between developed countries, it’s unacceptable.
De Montebello also mentioned that the Met had turned down a proposal for an outpost in Hong Kong, “which didn’t interest us.” He criticized “exclusive operations” with foreign entities, saying:
In a certain sense, I have alliances with all museums. But no exclusivity. In matters of art, I’m a complete polygamist.
In an editorial posted on La Tribune de l’Art (not, at this writing, translated in the English version of the website), Didier Rykner decries what he sees as the lack of transparency and honesty in the Louvre’s dealings with foreign borrowers.
Rykner writes:
The contract [between the Louvre and Abu Dhabi] was signed in March…, the Louvre already received 150 million euros before the summer, and the legislators [who approved the deal] voted in autumn.
Rykner also criticizes the Louvre’s loan shows of large numbers of works to U.S. institutions. He notes that, apropos the loans to the High Museum in Atlanta, Vincent Pomarède, head of the Louvre’s paintings department, had told Le Monde on Jan. 31:
We are not crazy. Certain masterpieces will not leave the Louvre for 11 months. The Raphael will be loaned for three months, and the Poussin for five months.
However, according to Rykner, “not only has the Poussin [“Et in Arcadia Ego”] not yet returned to the Louvre, from which it departed more than eight months ago, but it was sent directly to Denver, where it will be shown until Jan. 6, 2008….It will therefore be absent from the Louvre for at least a year, contrary to what was promised.”
De Montebello’s musings for Le Monde were far-ranging, touching not only on art-for-money deals, but also on antiquities restitution, deaccessioning, admission fees and the Met’s decision not to purchase recent art.
So get out your Larousse and peruse!