A museum without art history

The fact that the catalogue of the exhibition ‘Géricault’s Horses’ (ill. 1) contains no text relating to the works exhibited is not the only problem with this scandalous retrospective, but it is an essential one. At no point are the attributions of the works, many of which are completely new, justified or even discussed. In the absence of notes, these could at least be developed in the essays, but this is never the case. We have already had occasion to write about this (see article), but the explanation given by the director of the Musée de la Vie romantique to Sabine Gignoux for the article published by the latter in La Croix is mind-boggling. She dares to assert that ‘We are not the Louvre to publish a huge volume with detailed notes’.

For Gaëlle Rio, then, art history in her museum is an option, because if we were to believe her, it would be too small. Need we remind her that she is part of a public establishment, Paris Musées, which has some resources at its disposal? Need we remind her that other museums of the City, such as the Maison de Victor Hugo, which are perfectly comparable to hers, regularly publish real, scientific catalogues in which the works are described and explained? Need we remind her that before she took over as director of this museum, it had produced many catalogues with or without detailed notes, but with impeccable erudition (ill. 2) and which are still references for art historians today? Lastly, does he need to be reminded that very many provincial museums, which ‘are not the Louvre’, also regularly publish exhibition catalogues that are exemplary in every way?

‘We chose a book aimed at the general public’ she adds. We invite the reader to leaf through (buying it is not necessarily necessary) the book that accompanies the exhibition to see that the few short essays that punctuate it are obviously not aimed at the ‘general public’. In fact, the ‘general public’ is scorned in this exhibition, which claims to show works by Géricault that are not by Géricault. According to Philippe Grunchec, an acknowledged specialist in the artist, who is now being called in by the major auction houses, around half the works in the exhibition are not by Géricault.

Let’s put ourselves in the shoes of one of these visitors for a moment. They come to the Musée de la Vie Romantique to see authentic works. How could he, knowing nothing about them, question the attributions? For him, everything in a museum is good, and that’s normal. Most art historians and enlightened art lovers understand what they are dealing with, but the ‘general public’ is fooled - you only have to read the visitors’ book and its glowing comments to be convinced.

To Éric Biétry-Rivierre in Figaro, the two curators dared to assert that one hundred per cent of the works in both the exhibition and the catalogue were autographs, that they had ‘removed everything that[seemed to them] problematic’ and that if they had doubted their conclusions, they would have put the word ‘attributed’ in the entries (entries which, let’s not forget, do not exist!).
In La Croix, the director explained that ‘this exhibition has the merit of boldly opening up the debate’. But what debate, since they never pose the elements of it by refusing to bring any element for the attributions?

It is true that we are too impatient, since, the co-curator tells us: ‘The time for proof will come, with the catalogue raisonné’ (in preparation since 2003...). We are very curious to see it come, and to know how it will justify the attribution of such and such a drawing, which is obviously a recent fake made to deceive, of such and such another that you wouldn’t buy for €100 at a jumble sale (it’s true that it’s not for sale, since it belongs to the Musée d’Ixelles), a painting in a private collection that is so mediocre that to present it under Géricault’s name is a real insult to the painter, or a sheet indisputably by Léon Cogniet (ill. 3) belonging to the Musée d’Orléans which magically becomes a ‘Géricault’ in the catalogue. The Musée d’Orléans was unaware that this work (and another) would be published there as by Géricault, and learned of it from us. It has asked for an erratum to be published, so far in vain.

Finally, we should point out that Le Figaro confirms that a painting that we reproduced in our first article and that was given as being in a private collection actually belongs to ‘a gallery owner’, who we also know has about ten works hanging on his walls. All of them, however, are indicated as being in a ‘private collection’. This method alone should discredit the whole operation, as it could be seen as a way of unfairly giving a pedigree to works that are in some cases on the market.