Louvre: comparison of the presidencies of Jean-Luc Martinez and Laurence des Cars

We published no fewer than 95 articles on the policy of Jean-Luc Martinez, the vast majority of which revealed affairs unworthy of this museum. We were relieved to see that his appointment was not renewed. However, the announcement of the nomination of Laurence des Cars never seemed like excellent news to us, because her track record did not necessarily speak in her favour, particularly her time as head of France Muséums. But at the Musée d’Orsay, an establishment also sorely tried by its predecessor, she had not caused too many waves, even if tongues are beginning to wag.

From now on, things are very different at the Louvre Museum, where her true nature can flourish. Here we have talked about the distressing project that she is threatening to carry out with the complicity of the Head of State (see the article). Unfortunately, we still have a lot to write about. But while we await these forthcoming articles - and hope not to have to exceed the staggering number of 95 - it is worth noting what she has done - or not done - since the departure of Jean-Luc Martinez. After all, the president and director of the museum has been in office for almost three and a half years. We will therefore go through the article we published to take stock of her predecessor point by point to see what has or has not been done. This will also enable us to announce several upcoming articles.

1. The Rembrandt Rothschild affair. We revealed that these two paintings had received their export certificate on the quiet. Their final departure from France was ultimately avoided, but rather than acquiring the two works - which was possible thanks to the patronage of the Banque de France - political interventions led to an absurd solution: their joint acquisition by the Louvre and the Rijksmuseum.
Laurence des Cars also has her Rembrandt Rothschild affair! Because just before he left - and this is an action that should be applauded - Jean-Luc Martinez had negotiated with Abu Dhabi to extend the use of the Louvre’s name for twenty years for 165 million euros, exactly the amount needed to buy The Standard-Bearer (ill. 1), this other Rembrandt Rothschild. He wanted to use it (no doubt having learnt his lesson from the previous affair) to acquire this famous Rembrandt. We thought that the newly arrived Laurence des Cars had not had a say in the abandonment of her purchase (see the article) and we blamed the Head of State. We were wrong: as we have since learnt, it was indeed she who finally decided not to enrich the Louvre with a superb painting that could have become one of the symbols of the Louvre. Today, we understand why: she needed the money for her big project.

2. Storage areas much too far from the museum. Of course, no president of the Louvre succeeding Jean-Luc Martinez could turn back the clock (see the articles). In this respect, Laurence des Cars has nothing to reproach herself for, even if - and this is a point that we will have to look into in more detail - her project plans to remove more storage space to develop the entrance on the colonnade side (this point is also briefly described in the document that we have analysed).

3. An expensive and botched refurbishment of the Pavillon de l’Horloge. We also criticised the expensive and botched refurbishment of the Pavillon de l’Horloge by Jean-Luc Martinez. Although Laurence des Cars chose to backtrack, which we could only approve (see the article), we now realise that all the money spent on doing and redoing would have been much better spent on maintaining the museum. Let’s give the president and director credit for that, at least.
On the other hand, she knows a thing or two about costly and pointless works: the works carried out in the Islamic Antiquities department, only thirteen years after they were done, do not meet any real need and will be at least as costly as those of the Pavillon de l’Horloge.
Worse still, we have learnt that another project is about to begin: the removal of the two spiral staircases that lead from the basement of the pyramid to the Salle du Manège (ill. 2 and 3), and from there to Michelangelo’s Salle des Esclaves or the Passage Daru towards the Winged Victory of Samothrace. One only has to visit the Louvre to see that these staircases are used by a considerable number of tourists. A very large proportion of visitors to the Louvre enter through the Denon wing, which represents several thousand people a day. Where will they go if they can’t go directly to the Salle du Manège to climb the staircase of Samothrace? Through the Donatello rooms on the right and the Ancient Greek rooms on the left, rooms that are very rich in works of art where such a flow of visitors simply passing through is likely to threaten the works. But perhaps they will be removed to exhibit "less but better"...

4. Disastrous management of the Valentin de Boulogne and Vermeer exhibitions. The exhibition rooms under the pyramid were closed during the entire beginning of his term of office and have only just reopened for the exhibition on the figure of the Fool. It will therefore be difficult to repeat this feat. However, a visit to the Cimabue exhibition (ill. 4), which we will come back to, demonstrates once again that organisation is not one of the Louvre’s strong points...

5. An absurd exhibition policy in Lens. We recognise that this point had already been improved under the presidency of Jean-Luc Martinez. The exhibitions in Lens have remained thematic, likely to attract more visitors than the specialised retrospectives that did not belong there.

6. The difficulties of working for the curators of the Louvre. On this point, nothing has really changed, and the feedback we have from them does not speak in favour of the management of Laurence des Cars, who obviously does not like the curators or their scientific work very much. We will have the opportunity to come back to this issue in detail in the near future.

7. Massive permanent room closures that the Louvre does not assume by lying to visitors. Here again, nothing has changed, as we will also see. Unable to open the museum, which has probably never been closed so much in thirty years, Laurence des Cars claims to be leading a huge useless project, which demonstrates a certain lack of sense of priorities. Even the room opening plans (ill. 5), which formalise the daily closure of rooms and are updated every week, are not respected and change during the day (ill. 6). This means that the agents at the information terminals are unable to confirm the opening of certain rooms.

8. The marginalisation of the departments and curators. This has not improved. We will also have the opportunity to come back to this. Note, for example, that during one of the two interviews we were able to have with Laurence des Cars (both times requested as off by her, who promised us on interviews that never came and that we read as written by our colleagues), she told us that she never wanted to intervene - except possibly to arbitrate - in the acquisitions of the departments. This is the exact opposite of her interventionist policy, which often happens for the worst and sometimes for the best, for example when it comes to bypassing the director of the Graphic Arts department.

9. Lecturers treated with contempt. We have no information on this, but we will look into it as well.

10. The Louvre criticised by the Court of Auditors because it does not make Abu Dhabi respect the contract on products and advertising. A new audit by the Court of Auditors is currently taking place, and this one should be quite critical. We will come back to it, of course.

11. Increase in the number of management posts (excluding conservation) and a steady decrease in the number of guards... We even talked about a Mexican army for the management positions. On these two points, nothing has changed, quite the contrary. The Mexican army has been almost entirely replaced, but it is still there, unlike the guards. On the second floor of the Cour Carrée in the Nordic painting collections, on Sunday 16 March we counted only three guards for seventeen rooms. The rooms containing 19th-century European paintings, which are located in a cul-de-sac, were closed, as is very often the case. And when we asked the guards about the reasons for this closure, the answer was unanimous: "there are not enough staff" (see also point 7).

12. The Louvre’s refusal of a donation of a fragment of a royal tomb. Of course, this sad episode could not be repeated.

13. Chaos at the Louvre caused by the relocation of the Mona Lisa. The Louvre is indeed promised much greater chaos due to the new relocation of the Mona Lisa, but this time it is intended to be permanent.

14. The area around the Louvre, saturated with barracks and "temporary" installations, from Saint-Germain-l’Auxerrois to the Place de la Concorde. This seemed unworthy of the palace to us. These still exist, even if they seem to be fewer in number (a point that remains to be verified, however).

15. Failure to respect the capacity limit under the pyramid for the Leonardo exhibition. It does not appear that this problem has reoccurred. It is true that, as we said above, the exhibition spaces under the Pyramid were closed for a long time and have only just reopened. On the other hand, and this information comes from inside the Louvre, confirmed by a recent press release from the CFE-GGC Culture union [1] the party organised to mark the end of the exhibition on the figure of the Madman, due to the large numbers and the difficulty of controlling a crowd that was not there to see the works but to have fun, gave the security management a real fright.

16. Useless and costly work in the Greek and Roman Antiquities rooms. As we have seen, Jean-Luc Martinez was an amateur compared to Laurence des Cars when it came to useless and costly work. To avoid a lawsuit with the Twombly heirs, she had to backtrack on the layout of the bronzes room; she didn’t really have a choice.

17. Sending to Liévin works that should be hanging in the Louvre. To Laurence des Cars’ credit, the great paintings by Jean-François de Troy and Noël Hallé have returned to the Salle des Sept Cheminées. But her desire to exhibit fewer works at the Louvre may have equally harmful effects.

18. A policy of low-end derivative products. We have no information on the renewal of this type of partnership with Alibaba or other equivalent operations.

19. Acquisitions at sometimes crazy prices. We will come back to the Louvre’s acquisition policy, which is not much more brilliant than it was under the Martinez era.

20. 260 Greek bronzes damaged by corrosion due to work in the Salle des Bronzes. Fortunately, it does not appear that Laurence des Cars’ policy has caused any deterioration of the works. On the other hand, her aim is to distort (deliberately this time) the palace, which is no better.

21. Useless work in the Jardin de l’Infante. Here again, this is a case of unnecessary work, much of which was said to be in progress or planned.

22. Patrons treated very badly. It is to be hoped - we have no information at this stage - that the patrons are now better treated (especially as the president and director will need them for her project).

23. We summarised other miscellaneous matters under this number. Some of these are still relevant: the museum’s lack of mastery of computer tools, particularly for online booking (see the article), or the constraints imposed on other museums for the loan of works. On this last point, it should be noted, however, that the conditions for exhibiting the drawings have been relaxed.
Let’s add a positive point for Laurence des Cars: she removed the low-end shop that Jean-Luc Martinez had installed in the Denon room (see the article). But have the paintings that were removed on that occasion, including Charles Gleyre’s Les Illusions perdues, returned? Obviously not (ill. 7).

This is a very partial review that seems to show that things have not improved much at the Louvre. And we will show that in reality, and no one thought this possible, they are even worse.