Why all the secrecy surrounding Gustave Courbet’s The Desperate Man?

On 15 October 2025, more than seven months ago, we asked the Musée d’Orsay to provide us with, or allow us to consult, the agreement it had concluded with the Qatar museums, regarding the loan by the latter to the Musée d’Orsay of The Desperate Man by Gustave Courbet, acquired without obtaining an export certificate. We described this genuine heritage scandal in two articles, here and there.

Orsay replied that it could not communicate this document, as “the loan agreement is covered by a confidentiality clause”. We therefore referred the matter to the Commission for Access to Administrative Documents (CADA) on 29 December 2025. Five months later, it has still not replied, which is abnormal [1]. As we were discussing this with Julien Lacaze, president of the association Sites & Monuments, he told us that he had made a similar request to the Ministry of Culture, and then to the CADA, on 27 November 2025, after receiving the same refusal from the Ministry.

More fortunate than us, the association received a reply on 5 March 2026, and it was negative. Although we are still waiting for a response to our own request, it is certain that it will not be different. Rather than wait for it, we will address the matter here now.

What is the explanation given by the commission for this refusal? It is, to say the least, quite surprising. We learn that a decision of the Conseil d’État [2] (Council of State) holds “that it is for the administration to assess objectively, and whatever the reasons for which the applicant requests access to an administrative document, whether, in view of its content and the uses that any person who might request it could make of it, such disclosure would harm the conduct of foreign policy”. One appreciates the precision of “objectively”, as if the Ministry of Culture, which does not hesitate to lie in defence of its positions [3], were “objective”. This is all the more so since the Conseil d’État adds: “the fact that a document does not contain information relating to the conduct of France’s foreign policy does not, in itself, rule out the risk of harm to that interest”. One understands how this opens the door for the Ministry to refuse any disclosure concerning the circumstances of a loan abroad…

It is difficult to see how the communication of the loan agreement could “harm the conduct of foreign policy” of France, if what the Ministry has said is true. One may therefore wonder what it contains that would make it undisclosable. The Ministry justified this risk by stating that “this agreement includes a clause by which the two contracting states have undertaken to maintain confidentiality regarding information relating to this loan”. Yet this statement is simply false: the Musée d’Orsay is a public institution, it is not the French State. As for Qatar Museums, it is even more remarkable: since 2013 it has been a “private entity for public good”, not a property of the State.

The Ministry of Culture therefore has no logical reason to refuse publication of the terms of this loan, unless it contains clauses that are illegal under the heritage code, or scandalous in its interpretation, which could require its cancellation, and no doubt a request for an export certificate.

It is true that it is frowned upon to offend a “sheikha” (the Emir’s sister), the “artistic eminence of Qatar”, if one believes an article in Le Monde which calmly explains, with a perfectly assumed arrogance: “I am offering you a painting that has remained in storage for more than ten years, so that the French public can enjoy it until the opening of our museum”. Her ladyship is too kind; we are truly ungrateful. Once again, the policy of Emmanuel Macron’s government in the field of museums and historic monuments runs counter to the public interest. One can no longer count the blows dealt to French heritage over the course of his two terms in office.