Acquisitions, collateral victims of the Cour des comptes report (and the Louvre’s)

The report by the Cour des comptes (Court of Auditors), which we will continue to analyse over the coming days, is unquestionably solid and well-documented. We share almost all of its conclusions, particularly regarding the « Louvre Nouvelle Renaissance » project, which are the same as ours: a superfluous, ill-prepared, and unfunded project, which is quite a lot.
It seems to us, however, that two findings must be strongly qualified: that on acquisitions, and that on the Société des Amis du Louvre. For the latter, we will wait for the report dedicated specifically to it before commenting. On the other hand, we can already write here about acquisitions.

Laurence des Cars and her predecessor, Jean-Luc Martinez, have undeniably caused a great deal of harm, not only to the Louvre but also to other French museums. For their acquisition policy, which is debatable in many respects, is questioned by the Cour des comptes, which draws conclusions that we believe are erroneous from behaviours that are solely due to the poor quality of the museum’s governance.
Does the Louvre buy poorly and at too high a price? Yes, without a doubt, but one must not throw the baby out with the bathwater, as the Cour des comptes seems to do on this point, concluding that less should be spent in this area, whereas the solution is primarily to buy better.

First, let us recall that in 2012 the acquisition budget for the Ministry of Culture’s heritage mission was abruptly halved, without ever being adjusted, even for inflation. This means that 150 million euros [1] have been lost over thirteen years for the acquisitions of French museums, from this single budget line alone. More broadly, regional authorities give less, municipalities give less, and the acquisition budgets of French museums remain insufficient. All are penalised by this policy.
Let us also recall that, among the missions of the Louvre Museum — as theoretically for all French museums — is the enrichment of its collections. And it is not this budget that burdens that of essential maintenance, no more than exhibitions, also at the core of their missions, would, but rather reckless expenditures such as the « Grande Colonnade project ». One must not mistake the fight. The acquisitions made by the Louvre cannot and should not be compared to security or technical equipment expenses.

It remains that the mediocre acquisition policy of the Louvre is a real problem for the museum. Here, we will only discuss what we know: Western art from the Middle Ages, namely the four departments of Decorative Arts, Sculptures, Paintings, and Graphic Arts.
The first two conduct coherent and, for the most part, relevant acquisition policies. If some missteps occasionally occur, this is nothing to be ashamed of, as mistakes or failures are always possible, provided one makes the effort. We cannot say the same for paintings and drawings. While some purchases are remarkable, far too many are questionable, and sometimes far too expensive. We refer to our articles devoted to Louvre acquisitions to provide an idea of these issues and problems.

The report also states that the museum displays an insufficient proportion of what it acquires. This point must, however, be put into perspective, at least in the fields that concern us. While the display of certain acquisitions is sometimes very slow to materialise, a quick consultation of the Louvre’s Collections database shows that many of them are, nonetheless, on display. It remains that, for example, for 2023, several paintings are still not exhibited, including two donations. How can one encourage patrons if their gifts are kept in reserve?
The Cour des comptes could above all have criticised — but perhaps that would have been beyond its remit? — the complete absence (dating back to Henri Loyrette’s mandate) of any review exhibition policy and catalogue publication of these acquisitions [2].

This refusal to highlight a large part of acquisitions (except for those that are heavily publicised, and not always necessary, such as The Basket of Wild Strawberries by Chardin) and the quantified finding of insufficient display of acquisitions inevitably leads, in the commentary on the Cour des comptes report, to the resurgence of the perennial debate over the end of the inalienability of works and the idea that museums should sell works in reserve. We have, on numerous occasions, explained why this would be a very bad measure.
The Louvre does not have too large a budget for acquisitions. It simply uses it very poorly. This is why, every year, we lament the export of masterpieces from our heritage that were meant to enter public collections. Not just at the Louvre: national treasures should also enrich provincial museums, which are often very poorly endowed.

The report contests purchase prices. It is true, in a sense, that abundant funds may perhaps lead the Louvre to be less careful about amounts. We are thus struck, as we have already written, by its inability to acquire significant works by lesser-known artists, sometimes absent from the museum walls, despite much lower prices. We were pleased, for instance, with the acquisition of a very fine painting by Monanteuil (see the news item of 31/3/22) or of a portrait by Drölling (see the news item of 7/3/25), names certainly less known to the general public, but which enrich the collections with superb works that were previously missing. One may regret that, on these significant amounts, some funds are not reserved for more reasonably priced works (between €10,000 and €100,000), which are often worthy of the Louvre.

Another part of the report seems completely ignorant of the art market, and even French law, which is somewhat troubling. Thus, in analysing the purchase prices of Cimabue and Chardin, two paintings whose acquisition is challenged by many due to their high price, the Cour des comptes compares the estimated value of the work before its public sale with the final price achieved. It concludes that one should require waiting for the administration’s response on classification as a national treasure before proceeding with the sale. Indeed, they explain, with concern, that the opposite would fix a reference price on the international market. But the law is made thus: if the State acquires a national treasure, it must purchase it at the international market price. The Cour des comptes should therefore require the auction sale before the export certificate is granted or not, rather than the reverse.
The system of national treasures certainly needs reviewing, which we believe is largely clogged, but certainly not in the way the Cour des comptes suggests.

It sometimes appears to follow the 2022 mission report on acquisition security, whose futility we had demonstrated here. It thus recommends — seemingly beyond its remit — not to acquire works that have been on public sale less than two years before. We have already had occasion, on several occasions, to explain why this rule is absurd, and the examples provided in the report are particularly striking. Thus, two Safavid-era Iranian bone inkwells from the late 16th century, one of royal provenance, were acquired for €3.6 million, which evidently scandalises the Cour. It notes that the dealer had paid €350,000 and that they were catalogued as « Iranian objects of the 19th century » and estimated at €150/200 for both.

What is scandalous here? The dealer did his job, taking a risk by buying them at a very high price, and sold them at the normal price for such objects. The Louvre cannot be blamed for not having seen them, as they were poorly identified, and curators cannot, for obvious reasons, spend their time scrutinising auction sales. Above all, even if they had seen them, they could have done nothing. French case law, which in some cases obliges buyers to return objects acquired cheaply because of misidentification, completely prevents museums from engaging in such transactions. We keep saying that this is regrettable, and even scandalous, but it is a fact. Let us recall that the Louvre was condemned to return to the seller a Poussin painting it had acquired as « School of Carracci ».

The other example given is equally irrelevant: a lot of poorly identified enamels, acquired for €9,750 including fees and resold for €90,000. Again, the dealer did only his job, the Louvre also, and seeking to forbid such transactions reflects a considerable ignorance of the art market. It is all the more absurd as the recommendation « not to purchase at a higher price works sold less than two years previously » comes with the exception « unless an objective reason (new attribution, restoration notably) justifies this new estimate », which is evidently the case here.
But even for works sold at auction for what they are, it is not necessarily absurd to acquire them less than two years after their previous public sale. Curators cannot see everything; they cannot always buy at a precise moment; budgets may be limited; the curator may have changed… Many reasons can justify acquiring from a dealer who has himself bought at auction, without it being a scandal. Perhaps it is time that non-specialists (as was the case for most of the 2022 acquisition report reviewers) stop giving acquisition advice, which is generally completely off the mark.

In conclusion, it remains that, by allowing, through its rather messy policy, these debates to reopen, the Louvre has done a great disservice to French museums, and more broadly to the art market, which really did not need this at the present time.