We have already spoken several times about the "Renaissance du Louvre" project launched by Emmanuel Macron and Laurence des Cars (see in particular this article). A damaging project for the Louvre - the palace as well as the museum - which is moreover being carried out, not at a gallop as it goes well beyond that, in a totally unrealistic manner. Not only is the project schedule untenable for proper work to be carried out, but its management is quite simply grotesque. I will make an exception and use the first person singular in an article to point out that before creating La Tribune de l’Art, and even though I was also studying art history at the same time, I spent about fifteen years in the field of business organisation, including almost ten years in a consulting firm. This experience allows me to speak with full knowledge of the facts: the project as revealed to us by internal documents at the Louvre is absurd in terms of both deadlines and method. This can only mean one thing: it is a façade to make people believe in a dialogue that in reality does not exist. The management of the Louvre already knows what it wants to impose. But even that is not enough because such a project can only be conceived in the long term. Given the ambition, which is to review the entire functioning of the Louvre by adding the redevelopment of the museum, the construction of underground exhibition halls and a new entrance, it is necessary to take the time to draw up precise specifications before even launching any concrete work. With sufficient skills and resources, which is far from being the case, this phase alone cannot take less than a year, and that still seems very optimistic. However, we are talking about a two-month job, with a total of 21 two-hour meetings spread over April (Easter holidays) and May (three long weekends, etc.). In other words, nothing.
Approximately 140 users are "mobilised" on this project, divided into eight working groups, some of which include a very large number of participants (39, 28, 25 and 17 for the densest), and with the help of only four external consultants whose role is to facilitate and transcribe the results of the meetings. It should be noted that the consultancy firm employed, Setec Organisation, specialises in project management assistance in the building sector, with the aim of contributing to "a more virtuous, more resilient real estate sector that is increasingly adapted to its users and the environment". That is all well and good, but it is difficult to understand their contribution to some of the topics dealt with by the working groups, such as digital technology in museums or the management of collection flows.
The amateurism of this undertaking is evident just by considering the chosen themes. On 10 February 2025, at the Louvre Management Committee, where these groups were presented, there were nine. Less than two months later, in the document of the plenary launch meeting, there were only eight, with different titles and contents, and with some subjects no longer appearing. Strangely, the "museum developments" (also promised in the statement of requirements document) are now absent from the working groups, except for those that are a direct consequence of the work; the "external communication to the public and partners" has also disappeared.
But none of this matters because, in any case, these working groups will not be able to come up with anything usable, whatever the subject.
Working meetings of 39 people
In this article, let us examine one of the eight themes of this project, number 2: "The cultural spaces of the New Louvre project".
This theme includes four workshops, which in reality means four two-hour meetings. These four meetings will address no fewer than eight subjects.
It is thus a question of dealing with eight subjects in four two-hour sessions, with a working group of 39 people (!), each of which could constitute a project in itself over several months if the Louvre were to evolve in real life.
For this group, therefore, there are the following two "workshops":
Workshop 1, first topic: "General definition of cultural spaces and functional links between them and with the other functions of the project".
– "Mona Lisa space and its mediation/interpretation route",
– "Temporary exhibition space",
– "Modular rooms",
– " ’Louvre of knowledge’ "
– "Colonnade reception (presentation of collections)".
Second topic: "Access and ticketing route":
– "Spaces with direct access (outside the opening hours of the permanent exhibition)"
– "Links with the spaces of the permanent exhibition"
– "Links with commercial offers (shop, restaurants, etc.)"
All this therefore has to be studied in two hours by 39 people gathered in one room. Let’s imagine - counting absentees - that only about thirty can attend this first meeting. This gives exactly an average of 4 minutes per participant... They will have to be efficient. Given the elliptical nature of the wording of the questions (" ’Louvre of knowledge’ ", "links with commercial offers", etc.), it is doubtful that two hours will be enough to understand what is being asked of them.
The Mona Lisa in space
The rest is similar. At the next meeting (workshop 2), the first topic will be "the Mona Lisa space" and the group will have to decide how many people it should hold (they could just as easily roll the dice), how this room will be accessed, what the "mediation route" will be, what "integrated equipment/furniture and sales counter" this "Mona Lisa space" will have to offer, what "technical equipment (floors, networks, technical gates, etc.)" it will have to include, what "related services (sanitary facilities, changing rooms, etc.)" and what "related premises (storage, PC, etc.)" will have to be there.
Also to be added, again during these two hours: the "identity of the premises, aesthetic design (sic)" of the "Colonnades reception area" (second topic of workshop 2), the "presentation of the collections" in this "space" (i.e. probably which works should be shown there as planned in the statement of requirements document, and how), as well as the "cultural signage" to be put in place.
As there will probably be time left over because all this is too simple, they will spend the rest of the two hours studying the "museographic impacts on the permanent exhibition" (third topic) by examining the consequences "on the presentation of the collections of the permanent exhibition (Crypts Levant, Osiris, Sphinx, on the different levels of the quadrilateral, etc.)". If it is a question of redefining the "presentation of the collections" in the three crypts mentioned, it will be quite quick since they will be emptied of all their works as we have seen. If the aim is to define where these should be reinstalled (and therefore in place of which works, in which rooms, while maintaining a coherent route), the time remaining (one minute per participant?) may be a little short, especially since of the 39 people present, only three (a curator of Egyptian antiquities and two of Oriental antiquities) will know what we are talking about.
The third two-hour workshop will focus on highly technical issues. They will look at "temporary exhibition spaces" (first topic) and "modular rooms" (second topic). The statement of requirements referred to a "modular room" whose purpose is not very clear [1]. So here we go from one "modular room" to "modular rooms" but it’s true that we’re no longer just about this detail. As with the Joconde room, the group participants are expected to define very precise architectural characteristics for these two subjects in the allotted minute, such as the capacity, the heights and widths, the nature of the technical equipment, that of the related premises, or even the nature of the modular elements. It’s hard to believe.
The fourth workshop looks at "the ’Louvre of Knowledge’" (the only subject dealt with, if we dare say so, in the workshop), jargon already mentioned a little earlier. The "Louvre of Knowledge" is explained (admittedly it’s a big word) in the document expressing needs. It is understood (or not) that the "Louvre of Knowledge" roughly corresponds to what would be called in less refined language an "educational area" intended in particular for children. The aim is to "develop learning by doing with new workshop rooms near the ’Joconde space’ and the temporary exhibition space, under the Cour Carrée" (meaning probably become Leonardo da Vinci in the vicinity of the Mona Lisa and under her influence), to "develop ’school at the museum’ with the creation of modular, digitally equipped spaces, [which] could be made available to teachers and classes as part of educational projects at the museum", and to "ensure the comfort of school groups visiting" with dedicated changing rooms, "suitable lunch areas" or "rest rooms".
The aim is to define (as for all the other working groups) the specifications for the architectural competition. And therefore to specify, as for the previous spaces, all the architectural and technical characteristics, not forgetting the necessary equipment, the necessary personnel, and even if necessary the presence of collections (?) [2]
Three project managers
We are talking here about the architectural competition that is due to be launched in June 2025, with the winner to be announced at the end of April 2026 and work due to start in autumn 2026. However, we learn from the document of the plenary launch meeting that another call for tenders will be launched for "the refurbishments in the rooms of the Sully quadrilateral made necessary by the reorganisation of the spaces", according to a schedule that has yet to be specified.
There will therefore be no less than three project managers: that of the winner of the international competition for: "the spaces of the ’new Louvre’, such as the museum premises (space dedicated to the Mona Lisa) and the new temporary exhibition halls"; that of the "museography of the rooms in the Sully quadrangle"; and finally that of the chief architect of historic monuments François Chatillon.
This last one is the only piece of good news: because François Chatillon is, in our opinion, one of the best architects of historical monuments currently working, and generally respectful of monuments. On this subject, let us make our mea culpa. In the first article devoted to this project, we wrote that the floors of the Fontaine staircases to the north and south of the east wing of the Sully quadrangle (the Colonnade) were threatened by their extension into the basement. It seems, according to internal sources at the Louvre, that the surveys carried out are being done on the side, and that these floors would be used as landings, without digging them, which could prevent excessive vandalism in this area.
Today, we will spare our readers the analysis of the other themes, including 5 ("management and flow of collections within the New Louvre project") and 7 ("digital at the Louvre"), which are equally absurd, but we will certainly come back to them later, as we will come back to the progress of the project. The next article will be devoted to a very topical subject: the closure of the rooms in the Louvre, which has never been less accessible than it is today since the Grand Louvre project forty years ago.