‘"Final workshop report"
As announced, the preparatory working groups for the launch of the Louvre Renaissance competition have submitted their conclusions (ill. 1).
This took place between 2 April and 19 May, over a period of one and a half months, with 21 two-hour meetings, eight working groups and a total of 140 participants, with an average of 25 participants per group (between 9 and 35). These figures alone, which we have already analysed (see the article), are dizzying in their absurdity. Such an inefficient project organisation produces a nice diagram (ill. 2) but could only result in a ridiculous summary of the work, which is exactly what happened.
An internal document entitled “Final workshop report” dated (in its “version B”) 27 May 2025, “aims to summarise the discussions of all the workshops on each theme” and “these elements will feed into the discussions led by the OPPIC and the François Chatillon agency in defining the project”.
We wish the latter good luck in extracting anything comprehensible from this intermediate document, which is a mixture of mush and gibberish.
Wanting, as we do here, to “summarise a summary” when it makes no sense is obviously an impossible task. We will therefore content ourselves with noting some of the countless absurdities in this document, not dealing with the working groups in order, but starting with the most grotesque. And we will publish several short articles rather than dealing with everything at once, as this would quickly become very indigestible.
Let us also clarify something that is not necessarily easy to explain, as it reflects a rather worrying mental confusion on the part of the authors of this summary: whenever a list of points is proposed, they are not consistent with each other. Some are complete sentences that state a fact, for example: “A need for support has been identified to help teams with the organisation and transfer operations.” Others, at the same level of hierarchy, are questions such as: “What is the impact of possible archaeological excavations on the project?” Still others are actions beginning with an infinitive verb: “Study the possibilities of exhibiting the collections during the duration of the work.” Finally, some are information in yet another form: “Alert on the staff and resources needed to remove the collections (current staff insufficient).”
The four sentences we have cited as examples are all at the same level, in the same list. This gives a fairly good idea of the less than rigorous nature of this document.
In the competition for the most stupid, the winner is undoubtedly the working group "Digital at the Louvre [1]".
It begins with a sub-chapter:
"Digital technology at the Louvre for the public", and this first sentence, which I invite readers to ponder: the ‘"visitor experience" (because visitors do not come to admire works of art, they come to have an “experience”) is "a challenge at the website to better reflect the physical reality of the museum so that visitors can prepare their visir [2]". If we vaguely understand what it means, we immediately see that this chapter has no connection with the project to be carried out by the OPPIC and the chief architect.
This is followed by the following consideration: " Use digital technology as a source of guidance such as Waze". It should be noted that "such as Waze" is not in bold, for no apparent reason.
Next comes: "Develop this geolocation principle by separating it from the audio guides to make it accessible to all, either through the development of an app or via a Louvre terminal available for hire." So there will surely be a call for tenders one day for a "Louvre terminal available for hire".
Each of the working groups has come up with some brilliant ideas that we would probably never have thought of and which the OPPIC and François Chatillon’s firm will be able to build on. Thus, (at the same level as the sentences quoted above), we read that: "Update information in real time is a major challenge. ‘ (remember that this is digital technology for the ’visitor experience"). This is very cleverly thought out.
Immediately after this comes a consideration of the “works database” . Apart from the fact that it is not very clear what this has to do with anything, the recommendation is interesting. It is: " to be modernised and made more intuitive/accessible (particularly through AI)’" Artificial intelligence is mentioned throughout the document as something that absolutely must be discussed (you’re either modern or you’re not), but without any real understanding of the subject. "We need AI" has almost become a basic principle.
Moreover, the next topic, “conversational tools” (placed on the same level as “visitor experience”), which is also related to AI, is mentioned as follows: “The need for conversational tools is questionable, but it seems important to evolve in step with technological advances.” For the uninitiated, we translate this as: "we don’t know exactly what it is or what it’s for, but it sounds modern."
We can’t quote everything. However, let’s note the following point ("Information to be disseminated"): " Digital technology could offer more intuitive solutions for navigating and accessing information to avoid overlapping labels .’ The entire sentence is in bold, so it is surely important, even if we do not fully understand what it means...
We remain in the chapter entitled "Digital technology at the Louvre for the public", which once again mentions artificial intelligence in a paragraph entitled [3]): "Artificial intelligence vs. sobriety".
Here we learn a little more about what AI would be used for, although it is still not very clear in the writer’s mind: " AI would make it possible to offer visitor itineraries taking into account various parameters: mobility, list of works to see, children, time, etc."
But ultimately, the metaphysical question "is it really necessary?" resurfaces in the following point: " The desired simplicity raises questions about the relevance and real need for AI development. The most urgent need is WiFi and 5G connectivity."
The conclusion is therefore clear: "Before we can deploy systems such as AI, significant work needs to be done to centralise and ensure the reliability of data. ". What data? What kind of centralisation? We will see later.
This chapter concludes with a strong statement about the emaster plan for information and digital systemse: " It is based on innovation, environmental and social responsibility, and the fight against fraud, with identified projects and flexible governance to meet the needs of the public and internal stakeholders."
After looking at digital technology for visitors, the rest of the chapter focuses on digital technology "for the administration and agents as user (sic)". We fear we are boring the reader and will move on quickly. However, it should be noted that these are topics that are completely unrelated to the work ahead, as they concern network coverage, accounting software and communication with reception and security staff. The document even goes so far as to raise the issue of business phones, which has absolutely no connection with the original subject.
Nevertheless, we would like to note a few points, without being able to explain them:
* "Need for signature space and an electronic signature book" (undoubtedly a fundamental point that is found elsewhere).
* "Redesign and simplification of the booking system for groups to be planned".
* "Desire to make current systems interoperable pending the redesign of certain tools".
Finally, this chapter (and this article) concludes once again with artificial intelligence. We cite these two points and leave the reader to ponder them until the next article is published:
* "Desire to seize the opportunities offered by AI in all business lines while ensuring they are properly managed (reliability, security)".
* "Desire for greater sharing between departments in order to capitalise on the work already done".