This web site’s recent article on the Louvre Abu Dhabi was terribly misinformed. Either Jonathan Bronitsky does not read French, and is relaying something he heard without knowing what I really said, or, if he knows what I wrote, he is misrepresenting it deliberately.

I will begin with the end: the so called “convenient appearance” of the Atlanta deal, suggesting that my opposition to it was really just a pretext for an anti Middle-East petition. It is a shame Mr Bronitsky does not know, or does not want to know anything about this article, or this one, I wrote among many others, about the Louvre in Atlanta. They were published long before there was even question of an Abu Dhabi Louvre. Further, he does not even know I opposed a branch of the Louvre, for many similar reasons, in Lens, a city in the north of France where a project was planned about three years ago. You can read (if you read French), articles here or here.

To review the real reasons why I oppose these deals: They were not decided in any systematic way. The Lens project was undertaken for political reasons by former French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin. The Abu Dhabi one was launched for diplomatic and financial reasons by French President Jacques Chirac and Minister of Culture Renaud Donnedieu de Vabres. Atlanta was undertaken because the High Museum’s director Mr. Shapiro and Henri Loyrette, President of the Louvre, are long time friends, and for financial reasons.

Exhibitions are not only works of art put together without any purpose. Exhibitions must tell something, learn something. Mr Bronitsky forgets to say that I am (and the other petitioners are) all in favour of exhibitions, when these exhibitions have a scientific and cultural purpose.

When a work of art is not there because it has been rented for a purpose without any link to art history, I am angry.

When money (a lot of money) is exchanged against art, any work of art can be rented, without consideration for its fragility. The decision to rent such or such work will not be for aesthetic reasons, but for political reasons as all these operations have been until now. If exhibitions and loans of works of art become onerously expensive, small museums will no longer be able to organize exhibitions because of lack of funds. And even if they could, some of the works of art they will need for aesthetic reasons will no more be available because they will be rented elsewhere, by richer countries or museums.

The Louvre in Paris is seen by more than 8 million visitors a year, mainly coming from abroad. They deserve to see the masterpieces of this museum. But the masterpieces will be the first to be rented, because nobody gives a lot of money in exchange of unknown master’s paintings. The Louvre is not a storage place where you can pick up works of art with diplomatic or political reasons. When a work of art is not in a museum I visit, because it is lent to a real exhibition, I regret it but I understand it. It is fair and right. When a work of art is not there because it has been rented for a purpose without any link to art history, I am angry. I recently went to New York but did not visit the Guggenheim. What is the point of visiting a museum whose collections are all over the world, and no more in the city where they were given to by the donor? On the contrary, I went several times to visit the Metropolitan Museum which does not pursue the same policy. I do not care if the Metropolitan shops are all over the world. I am a great Metropolitan Museum fan.

Abu Dhabi is just a new and bigger step towards a policy the French government has been leading these recent years. I do not complain of Saudi Prince Walin bin Talal’s 2005 donation of $20 million because I am in favour of patronage. I am grateful for this gift, which is a gift, which is not a fee to borrow other art.

Lastly, it is untrue to say the Louvre museum needs money. The Louvre is now, given French laws that allow tax deductions to companies which buy works of art for the museum, a very rich museum, which can sometimes even compete against the Getty (for example when it bought a sculpture by the Austrian artist Messerschmidt, outbidding the California museum). Museums and historical museums are the main reasons for tourists coming to France and they bring a lot of money to the country. In exchange, it seems fair the State should ensure these museums’ financial health without forcing them to rent themselves.

If Mr Bronitsky does not read French, I have some good news for him. La Tribune de l’Art will soon have an English version, The Art Tribune.        

Didier Rykner, editor of La Tribune d’Art, is an art historian and critic.